Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

OIL (TEST DRILLING).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement as to the progress of experimental test drilling for oil in Scotland?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): Two deep test boreholes have recently been put down in Midlothian by separate licensees under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. A small quantity of oil has been encountered at one borehole and considerable quantities of natural gas at both of them. The gas is at present shut in at both boreholes pending the drilling of two more in the neighbourhood. In addition, exploratory work is taking place on the north side of the Firth of Forth.

Sir T. Moore: Does my hon. and gallant Friend see a successful issue to these efforts?

Captain Crookshank: I should not like to make any statement on that subject at present.

SHEEP FARMING.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious condition of sheep farming; and what steps the Government propose to take to re-establish this essential branch of Scottish agriculture?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): As indicated in replies to questions circulated on 17th November and in the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture

and Fisheries during the Debate on the Address on 15th November, my right hon. Friend and I are fully aware of the situation in the sheep farming industry and have the matter under close consideration.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this state of things is becoming more serious, and that the replies up to date by the Government have failed completely to remedy it?

Mr. Colville: No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that the problem is by no means easy to solve.

Mr. Johnston: When is the Minister likely to be in a position to make a statement on this subject?

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents was offered as little as 7s. for his black-faced sheep?

HEALTH SERVICES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the report of the Departmental Committee on the Scottish Health Services, with special reference to the provision of a medical service for wives and dependants of national health insured persons; and what action does he propose to give effect to either the, majority or minority reports?

Mr. Colville: This matter has received careful consideration, but I regret that I cannot at present hold out any prospect of legislation for this purpose.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the section of the British Medical Association which represents Scotland is now unanimously of the opinion that some action should be taken in the interests of the health of the dependants of insured persons in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I am aware of the importance of the question, but, as the hon. Member will recollect, the Committee found it difficult to agree on a solution. I cannot add anything to what I have said on the subject of legislation.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my question I gave him the opportunity of accepting either the majority or the minority report?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared favourably to consider the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the problems of administration arising out of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and the problems of rating associated with local government?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 28th June last.

Mr. Westwood: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is now a unanimous demand from the local authorities in Scotland for such a commission, whereas previously the County Councils Association were not so keenly interested in the problem?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that.

INSURED WORKERS (CHRONIC INCAPACITY).

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any information regarding the clinical inquiry being made by the Department of Health for Scotland into the problem of chronic incapacity of insured workers in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: This inquiry, the general lines of which were explained in the Department's Annual Report for 1937, is still proceeding. It is too early to give any indication of the conclusions which may be drawn. I might mention, however, that about 25,000 cases have now been reviewed, of which some 5,000 have undergone special clinical examination.

Mrs. Hardie: Does the inquiry into the disabilities of young people in industry cover the conditions of employment, the fact that they are subject to long spells of unemployment, and the conditions in their homes, particularly in cases where other members of the family are unemployed and are subject to the means test?

Mr. Colville: The inquiry covers a very wide range. If the hon. Lady would like me to do so, I will let her have further details as to the nature of the employments covered.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Do the figures bear out what has been referred to as the

rise in the standard of living in the last seven years?

Mr. Colville: The figures only show that the Department has been carrying out its work.

TUBERCULOSIS, GLASGOW.

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the report of the medical officer of health for Glasgow contains the statement that the death rate from tuberculosis amongst girls from 15 to 25 years of age has increased, and that notifications of this disease amongst this age group has risen during the last five years; and will he inquire into the causes of this increase?

Mr. Colville: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. While the general death rate from pulmonary tuberculosis has continued to decline, the relatively high mortality among young adults has been a matter of serious concern for many years. I understand that the rate among girls in Glasgow is receiving special consideration from the medical officer of health and his staff.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical officer gives, as the reason for the high death rate among this particular age group, fruity nutrition and fatigue, and does not that show that the wages and conditions of labour are not sufficiently good?

Mr. Colville: I know that the medical officer of health has this particular age group under his special examination now, and that he is concerned to get at the exact reasons. There are causes other than those which the hon. Lady has mentioned.

HEADMASTERS AND HEADMISTRESSES (CLERICAL ASSISTANTS).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many headmasters or headmistresses there are in each of the cities and large burghs of Scotland, and how many of these have full-time and part-time clerical assistants, respectively; and whether he will consider extending the employment of such assistants, with a view to releasing headmasters or headmistresses for their ordinary functions of supervision and teaching?

Mr. Colville: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


City or Large Burgh.
Number of Head masters or Head mistresses.
Number of Headmasters or Headmistresses having Clerical Assistants.


Full-time.
Part-time.


Aberdeen
39
6
14


Dundee
47
2
6


Edinburgh
107
16
—


Glasgow
257
39
10


Arbroath
6
1
—


Ayr
14
1
—


Kilmarnock
11
1
1


Dumfries
8
2
—


Dumbarton
9
2
2


Clydebank
8
1
2


Dunfermline
13
2
—


Kirkcaldy
12
2
—


Inverness
11
2
—


Airdrie
10
1
1


Coatbridge
16
3
1


Hamilton
11
2
1


Motherwell and Wishaw
20
4
2


Rutherglen
6
1
1


Perth
13
1
1


Paisley
23
5
2


Greenock
23
3
—


Stirling
8
2
—


Falkirk
10
2
—


Totals
682
101
44

I feel that the question of extending the employment of such clerical assistants is one which may properly be left to the discretion of the local education authorities in the light of their knowledge of the circumstances existing in their schools.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he can now state the date of publication of the report of the Highlands and Islands Committee of the Scottish National Development Council;
(2) whether he will introduce legislation to assist Highland reconstruction by setting up a Highland Development Board with power to acquire land, fishing, and other sporting rights, to control waterpower development, and conduct afforestation, agriculture, and research, with financial powers and special funds?

Mr. Colville: As stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 1st November, I am informed that the report

of the Highlands and Islands Sub-Committee of the Scottish Development Council will be available about the beginning of next month. As he will appreciate, the terms of that report will require very careful study by the various departments concerned. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

OATS.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the grave injury to Scottish agriculture arising from the present unremunerative price of oats; and whether he will consider increasing the guaranteed price and raising the quota per acre in order to give to Scottish farmers the security in respect of their stable cereal crop which is now enjoyed by the growers of wheat?

Mr. Colville: I am aware of the recent fall in the price of oats, which will, of course, mean that the sums payable next year to oat growers under the Agriculture Act, 1937, will be substantially higher than those paid this year. I cannot make any statement with regard to the suggestions made in the second part of the question, but, as my right. hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture indicated during the Debate on 15th November, the Government will continue to give consideration to the position of the growers of oats and barley.

Mr. Boothby: Is the Secretary of State aware that the sums which are about to be paid are quite insufficient to secure a remunerative price to growers of oats? Does he not regard this matter as one of great urgency, and will he give an undertaking that the Government will look into it without any delay?

Mr. Colville: I have already indicated that I will look into the position of oat growers, but the sums which will be payable on the crop grown this year will be very much greater than those paid this year on the crop grown last year.

Mr. Boothby: They are not enough.

Duchess of Atholl: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that Scottish farmers find it very difficult to understand why these payments should be based on only two quarters an acre, instead of the considerably larger quantity per acre which is the basis in the case of wheat?

Mr. Colville: That point has been put to me already, but it must also be remembered that in the case of wheat very large quantities are imported from abroad, whereas the imports of oats are very small. The remedy cannot be applied in quite the same way.

Sir R. W. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN SCOTLAND.


Acreages under Oats in the Years 1936, 1937 and 1938.


Institution.
Year.


1936.
1937.
1938.



Acres.
Acres.
Acres.


Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture
36·25
44·5
30


North of Scotland College of Agriculture
 50
55
83


West of Scotland Agricultural College
52
55
48


Animal Diseases Research Association
Nil
Nil
Nil


Hannah Dairy Research Institute
18
9
30


Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh University
52
55·5
37


Macaulay Institute for Soil Research
3*
3*
—


Rowett Research Institute
79·2
123·7
146·6


Scottish Society for Research in Plant Breeding
6·25
8·25
7



296·7
353·95
381·6


*Marcaulay Farm in Lewis.

HOTEL FIRE, ABERDOUR.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report on a fire which took place recently at the Forthview Hotel, Aberdour; whether he is aware that the only means of access to the hotel is by means of a dark and narrow path round the old harbour, which makes a sudden night-time evacuation extremely dangerous; and whether he will consider the building of a roadway in this part of Aberdour?

Mr. Colville: I have no information about the circumstances of the fire referred to in the question, but I am making inquiries, and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to find out the full facts concerning the danger, not only from fire, but from the bad road, which makes it difficult for visitors to escape?

Mr. Colville: I am making inquiries into the matter. If the hon. Member has any other points to put before me, I shall be happy to take them into consideration.

acres of the land farmed by each of the three agricultural colleges and the research institutions in Scotland oats were grown in each of the last three years?

Mr. Colville: As the reply includes a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

ARREST, LERWICK.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, arising out of the wrongful arrest of Mr. Hunter Sandison, of 86, King Harold Street, Lerwick, on 15th July, 1937, the Zetland County Council has considered the circumstances of the arrest, including the action of the police authorities, and decided that Mr. Sandison had no justifiable ground for complaint, and that this decision was based on an investigation by the Lord Advocate's Department; whether he will state the nature and scope of this investigation; whether Mr. Sandison was communicated with by the Department; and what evidence other than that of the sheriff-substitute and the police concerned was taken?

Mr. Colville: The Zetland County Council's decision was not based on the inquiries made by the criminal authorities, no report of which was communicated to the council.

FISHING INDUSTRY (MOTOR-BOATS).

Mr. Loftus: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applications


received from Scottish ports, and from which ports, for grants towards the cost of building new motor-boats under Section 4 of the Herring Industry Act, 1938?

Mr. Colville: I would refer to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. No formal applications have been made, though a few tentative inquiries have been received from Scottish ports.

Mr. Loftus: How many tentative inquiries have been received?

Mr. Colville: They have been received from Buckle, Wick, Hopeman, Helmsdale, Lossiemouth, Leith and Carradale. There has been one inquiry from each port.

PROPOSED CAUSEWAY, BERNERA ISLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding the proposed causeway at Bernera Island, Isle of Lewis?

Mr. Colville: Following an application by the county council, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland offered a grant in aid of the construction of boatslips on either side of Bernera Sound. The county council subsequently indicated that they desired to consider the construction of a causeway across the Sound; and while, so far as I am aware, they have not formally adopted this suggestion, the matter is now the subject of correspondence and discussion.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been a subject of correspondence and discussion for a great number of years, and that in the meantime people are being inconvenienced? Will he not urge that some more definite action than mere discussion shall be taken; and will he not initiate that action himself?

Mr. Colville: I am looking into the matter personally, but the hon. Member will realise that the Department offered to make a grant for a certain purpose, and that the county council expressed the view that they would like it done in another way.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, after making special inquiries, I have myself

had a unanimous request from the district for a causeway and not for slips?

Mr. Colville: I will bear that point in mind; but, of course, the hon. Member must realise the position of the local authorities.

COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTORS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of electors entitled to vote in county council elections in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I regret that I am not in possession of the figures asked for in the question.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he does not get supplied with these figures annually after the lists have been made up? Is it not possible to provide this information, in order that it may be complementary to the information about the number of electors which he gave last week?

Mr. Colville: I do not get that information supplied to me. I can only get it by a special request to all the separate registration officers. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to have a word with me on the matter.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of single-apartment houses in Glasgow at present occupied and the average number of persons residing in each house; and similar figures for two-apartment houses?

Mr. Colville: At 15th May, 1938, there were 34,996 occupied houses of one apartment, and 110,894 occupied houses of two apartments in Glasgow. No information is available as to the average number of persons occupying such houses at a current date, but the overcrowding survey in 1935 showed that at that time the average number of persons occupying one-apartment houses was 2.4 and the average number occupying two-apartment houses was 3·4.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of dwelling houses in the city of Glasgow at the present time; and the estimated wastage each year?

Mr. Colville: There are at the present time approximately 280,000 houses in


Glasgow. The average annual number of houses which have been closed and demolished during the last nine years is 1,438: but the total number of houses actually becoming unfit each year probably exceeds this figure by a number estimated at from 500 to 1,000.

PRISON SYSTEM (CHANGES).

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention, at an early date, to make any changes in the prison system in Scotland; and, if so, the nature of any such changes?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. As the answer is a long one, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1. So far as changes in the prison system involve legislation, the hon. Member will be aware of the proposals of the Criminal justice Bill as applied to Scotland.
2. So far as other changes are concerned, the position is an follows:—

Wage-earning and Smoking.

During the next financial year, a wage-earning system, with a consequential scheme for allowing smoking, will be introduced in all Scottish prisons. The system will be generally similar to the system which is now being operated in a number of selected English prisons.

Temporary removal of long-term prisoners to other prisons to facilitate visits being paid by relatives.

In the past, transfers of long-term prisoners in Scotland from one prison to another for the purpose of receiving visits have been limited to cases where they have made application for special facilities to get into touch with possible employers or relatives who would help them to find work on liberation. Transfers for this purpose will continue to be permitted and, in addition, there will be applied to Scotland the system now in operation in England whereby long-term prisoners who have completed four years of their sentence can be temporarily transferred once a year, if they so desire, to a prison where it will be convenient to receive accumulated visits from relatives or friends.

Letters.

Convicts may receive and write one letter and receive a visit (a) on their reception in prison, (b) after two months of the sentence has been served, and (c) monthly thereafter. They are also allowed to receive and write a letter in lieu of a visit.

Ordinary prisoners may be allowed a letter regarding urgent business arrangements on their reception in prison. After serving two months of the sentence they may receive and write a letter and receive a visit. The same privileges are allowed once a month thereafter. They may also receive or write a letter in lieu of a visit. In both cases, special letters are also allowed on good cause being shown. The question of allowing letters to be written and received more frequently is to he considered by the Prisons Department in consultation with the Prison Commission for England and Wales.

Libraries.

Since February, 1936, over 8,000 books, nearly 7,000 of which are fiction, have been received as gifts and added to prison libraries. Many volumes of magazines have also been received. At Peterhead there are at present over 1,600 books, approximately 250 of which were added during the first six months of this year. The Governor of Peterhead Prison is in touch with the public libraries to see whether further books can be presented.

Electric lighting in prisons.

By the end of next year there will be electric light in all prisons except Kirkwall and Lerwick. The installation at Peterhead Prison, however, will not be entirely completed until the following year.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (TENANTS' RENTS).

Sir R. W. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will at once make arrangements for the Department of Agriculture to have exact information as to the rent per acre per annum of each acre of arable land belonging to the Department?

Mr. Colville: I have information of the rents payable by all tenants on the 350,000 acres belonging to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland; but


these rents are fixed in relation to each holding as a whole. My hon. Friend's suggestion would involve estimating separately the value and acreage of the arable portion of each holding, which would involve a very large expenditure of time. I regret, therefore, that I cannot agree to his proposal.

Sir R. W. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be of great value if the information about the price of arable land in Scotland were given? It will be impossible to deal with the agricultural situation effectively unless the Government know whether the value of land in Scotland is going up or down. How can they say that their costings are correct if they do not know the value of the land as a whole?

Mr. Colville: The inquiry my hon. Friend suggests would really be an impossible one. He will realise that the holdings are not merely arable, but include pasture and grazing land as well; and to get the information for which he asks would involve an enormous inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

AUTOMATIC FIREDAMP DETECTORS (DRAFT REGULATIONS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he intends to take any action with regard to the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on the compulsory use of automatic gas detectors underground?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I had decided in May last to give effect to the recommendations regarding automatic firedamp detectors made by the majority of the Committee on the Firedamp Detector Regulations. Before action had been taken the explosion occurred at Markham Colliery, where automatic detectors were extensively used, and I decided to defer action until the report on the explosion had become available. From the Commissioner's report, which has now been published, it is apparent that the fact that automatic detectors were in use at this colliery had no bearing upon the occurrence of the explosion. Draft regulations requiring, among other things, the compulsory use of automatic detectors in certain circumstances will be formally issued to the industry in the course of the next two weeks.

Mr. Smith: Can the Minister say when the regulations are likely to come into operation?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. The draft regulations have to be published, and then, of course, there is an opportunity for people to make objections. One has to await them; there is a period laid down.

Mr. George Griffiths: What are the "certain circumstances" of which the Minister speaks?

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Member had better wait till the draft regulations are published.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (PITHEAD BATHS).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement on the proposed utilisation of pithead baths in the scheme of air-raid precautions; and whether it is proposed to consult the pithead bath committees at the respective collieries on the matter?

Captain Crookshank: The design and equipment of pithead baths makes these buildings specially suitable for the purposes of local air-raid precautions schemes. The responsibility for these schemes, however, falls upon the local authorities, and the question of using and adapting any particular baths installation is a matter for arrangement between the authority and the trustees and management committee of the installation.

SILICOSIS, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress is being made in the investigation into the problem of silicosis in the anthracite coalfield of South Wales; and whether he can give any indication as to when the investigation will be completed?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): The investigation into chronic pulmonary disease among coal-miners in Sown Wales is making good progress. The analysis of the large amount of evidence collected at the Ammanford No. 2 Colliery has been completed. As a result, it has been decided not to make another comprehensive study of this kind, but to make more limited and rapid inquiries at a number of


different pits which are now being selected. It is hoped to complete these further inquiries within six months, but as the results cannot be foreseen it is not yet possible to say when the investigation as a whole will be concluded.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it intended, in addition to examining certain selected workmen at these other collieries, to conduct an investigation into the conditions under which the men are employed at these collieries?

Earl Winterton: I think a full investigation is being made by these investigators, who include men of the greatest scientific eminence. I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point which has been put by the hon. Gentleman, but I think these people may be trusted to make the fullest possible investigation.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Bracken: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when His Majesty's Government intend to make proposals to restore Dominion status to Newfoundland?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The Address from the Newfoundland Legislature, to which effect was given by the Newfoundland Act, 1933, asked for the suspension of the then existing form of government until such time as the island might become self-supporting again. I fear that the island cannot be expected to be self-supporting for some considerable time to come. It would be premature, therefore, to consider the change suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the islanders are more nearly self-supporting now than they were when self-government was taken away from them?

Mr. MacDonald: At the moment the trade depression and the going back of some of the most important markets have had a serious effect on the revenues of the country. At the moment conditions are rather bad.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is it proposed that some advisory machinery should be created for maintaining a liaison between

the population on the one side and the Commission Government on the other? Are there any means allowed for collecting public opinion?

Mr. MacDonald: The Commission are very careful to keep a liaison with a number of bodies as well as individuals in the island.

Mr. Bracken: Would the Minister tell us what would really happen to the British Empire if economic misfortunes deprived the people of self-governing rights?

Mr. MacDonald: The changes that have taken place in Newfoundland have been at the request of the people of Newfoundland itself.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many times he has had requests for their democratic rights to be restored to the people?

Mr. MacDonald: Not without notice, but I have not had many requests from official bodies or individuals.

Mr. Lunn: You have had them, have you not?

Mr. MacDonald: Some, but only a few.

Captain Arthur Evans: When may the House expect another report from the Commissioners to be laid on the Table?

Mr. MacDonald: The annual report will be circulated in May.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA.

HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES.

Mr. Storey: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has yet received from His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa the memoranda setting out the terms upon which they propose that the High Commission Territories should be transferred to the Union of South Africa?

Mr. MacDonald: I understand that the terms of the proposed memoranda which are to be issued by the Union Government have not yet been finally settled. As explained by my predecessor in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 14th June, the object of the memoranda is to enable the inhabitants of the territories to


judge what the position would be in the event of transfer.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to take it that His Majesty's Government are not committed to transfer? What has been the subject of the discussions with Mr. Pirow?

Mr. MacDonald: The matter has not been the subject of discussions with Mr. Pirow. With regard to the first part of the question, there is no change in the situation whatever.

MR. PIROW'S VISIT.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent visit of Mr. Pirow, the South African Defence Minister, to this country?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The object of Mr. Pirow's visit to this country has been to discuss with the appropriate authorities of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom certain technical aspects of the defence programme of the Union of South Africa. These discussions have now taken place, and the questions involved have been settled. Mr. Pirow has left for a visit to the Continent, but he will be returning to this country for a short time before he sails for South Africa.

Mr. Henderson: May the House take it that Mr. Pirow, when he was in London, was not authorised by His Majesty's Government to commit this country in any conversations that he might have with the German Government in respect to the German Colonial claims?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, among the other objects of Mr. Pirow's visit here, one has been to discuss with His Majesty's Government the German Colonial claims?

Mr. MacDonald: Naturally, when any distinguished statesman from a Dominion comes to this country, we take the opportunity of discussing informally all sorts of international questions. Beyond that and beyond the official purpose of Mr. Pirow's visit, no significance attaches to the visit.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Pirow has been entrusted with any mission from the British Government on his visit to Berlin?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Do we understand the Minister to say that, neither directly nor indirectly is Mr. Pirow entitled to express the views of His Majesty's Government on these Colonial questions?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, that is the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMAN WINES.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the recorded imports of German wines by Great Britain, the British Empire apart from Great Britain, France, and the United States of America, respectively; and whether these wines are trade-marked or otherwise made easily identifiable by consumers?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): With the right hon. Gentleman's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply to the first part of the question. I am advised by the trade that the reply to the second part is in the affirmative.

Mr. Johnston: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether this is an appropriate avenue through which consumers of these liquors in democratic and humanitarian countries could express their disapproval of recent and current events in Germany?

Following is the reply to the first part of the question:


Table showing the value of wine exported from Germany to (i) the United Kingdom; (ii) the British Empire apart from the United Kingdom; (iii) France, and (iv) the United States, during each of the years 1936 and 1937.


(Abstracted from the official German trade returns.)


Countries.
1936
1937.



Thousand Reichsmarks.


United Kingdom
3,331
3,456


Rest of British Empire
568
572


France
22
45


United States
1,197
1945


Mean quoted rate of exchange:—


1936—12·35 Reichsmarks to the £


1937—12·32 Reichsmarks to the £

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any trade negotiations are being conducted, or are contemplated, in order to provide facilities for the export to this country of goods from Czechoslovakia in a mutual trade agreement?

Mr. Stanley: No trade negotiations with Czechoslovakia are in progress or in contemplation.

Mr. Mander: But is not this one of the methods by which we might help the people of Czechoslovakia, and will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of entering into such negotiations?

Mr. Stanley: If it had been likely that we could have come to a special treaty with Czechoslovakia, no doubt we should have entered into negotiations some time ago, as we have done with many other countries, but I do not think there is any basis for a special treaty.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Should we not have to ask both Germany and Czechoslovakia?

FOREIGN SUBSIDISED EXPORTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking any steps to safeguard British trade against special subsidised exports from certain countries; and is he now in a position to make a statement on this problem?

Mr. Stanley: Our tariff system is designed to safeguard British trade in the home market against excessive competition of any kind. The problems presented to British trade by such competition in other markets are varied and require varied methods of treatment, which can generally best be considered in the first place by the industry concerned. I am ready to give what help I can in any particular case.

Mr. Smith: Do I take it that the Board of Trade are taking the initiative in this matter, with a view to calling conferences of the industries mostly affected?

Mr. Stanley: I did refer to this matter in a speech which I made recently in the House, and I can assure hon. Members that we are pressing on with it in whatever ways we consider best.

GOVERNMENT WHEAT PURCHASES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in connection with the purchases which the British Government have recently made from the state agricultural co-operative department of Rumania, the wheat will be imported whole, or whether it will be de-offalised before arriving in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: The wheat which my hon. Friend refers to will be imported whole.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Agriculture with a view to seeing whether some reduction in the price of wheat offal can be effected?

Mr. Stanley: That is rather a wider question.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will abrogate the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in all treaties, with a view to leaving him freer to make bargains with other countries?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. The view of His Majesty's Government, which has previously been stated on numerous occasions in this House, is that the general maintenance of the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment is essential for the stability of commercial relations. His Majesty's Government would not, however, propose that such treatment should be accorded indefinitely to any country which is not prepared to meet the reasonable requirements of this country with regard to the treatment of United Kingdom goods.

Mr. Levy: Would it not be a benefit to my right hon. Friend in making bi-lateral treaties if this clause were modified?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that that would be the case. Hon. Members should realise that it would make little change in the situation if we were to abolish the most-favoured-nation system unless countries with which we were bargaining were prepared to do the same.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not some case for modifying the clause in cases where goods are heavily subsidised by certain foreign countries?

Mr. Stanley: As I have said, if we thought goods were being discriminated against by a particular country, we would consider the possibility.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend know anyone outside the Board of Trade who believes in this clause?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure they would not be among the circle of my hon. Friend.

CONGO BASIN TREATY.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to terminate the Congo Basin Treaty, in view of its disastrous effect on the textile trade?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer to the answer which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) on 31st May last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Burke: Does that mean that nothing can be done, and that the Treaty must go on for ever until one of the signatories find that it is disadvantageous to them, as it is to us?

Mr. Stanley: It has been explained on many occasions that the opinion of the Law Officers is that this Treaty can only be changed by general agreement among the parties to it.

ARGENTINE MEAT.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take with regard to the fact, reported by the joint committee of inquiry into the Anglo-Argentine meat trade, that the meat producers and packers of the Argentine are now developing a local market for the better qualities of beef which have hitherto been available for the people of Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that this local Argentine market is being supplied at a heavy loss which has to be made up by the prices charged to British consumers, he will take steps to produce some modification of import restrictions to assist the health and nutrition of the people of England by remedying these tendencies?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will realise that His Majesty's Government cannot control the market for beef in Argentina. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the quantity of beef

imported is regulated by the International Beef Conference having regard to the general supply situation.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister not agree to the proposition in the question that the better qualities of Argentine beef are now being retained for Argentine consumption, and that some differentiation in the import regulations might remedy that state of affairs in our interests?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman is right about the better qualities of Argentine beef being retained for Argentine consumption, it would be an argument in favour of the people of this country eating British beef.

Mr. Adams: Do I understand that the Minister will use his influence with the Cabinet to have the standard of life generally in this country raised, so that the people will be able to purchase British beef?

Mr. Stanley: The Cabinet does not need my influence in that respect. It has raised the standard of life of the people very considerably.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take, in conjunction with the Government of the Argentine, to carry out the recommendations of the joint committee of inquiry into the Anglo-Argentine meat trade, and that standardised systems of accounting and similar devices should be adopted covering the whole of the operations from the purchase of live stock to the wholesale distribution of the product, with a view to ensuring that the companies engaged in this trade, enjoying as they do considerable security owing to Government regulations, shall render the service of supplying the public with an essential element in its food supply at no more than a reasonable charge?

Mr. Stanley: The committee's recommendations are primarily directed to ensuring that the Argentine cattle producer obtains a reasonable share of the proceeds of the sale of his product in this country. The recommendation to which the hon. Member particularly refers is one which will clearly require careful and lengthy consideration, and I should prefer to await the views of the Argentine Government.

Mr. Adams: Then I take it that steps will be taken under this new standardised system to have reasonable prices, and not excessive prices, charged to the people of this country?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

FOOD (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the number of cases brought to his notice for the 12 months ended the last convenient date in which food of any description fit for human consumption has been destroyed?

Mr. Stanley: The only cases which I recall are the waste of skimmed milk mentioned in the report of the Food Council on Cream and the occasional destruction of herrings mentioned in the Third Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board (Cmd. 5762). Copies of these reports are in the Library.

Mr. Day: Does the Minister propose to seek any further powers to prevent the destruction of food?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, it seems quite unnecessary in view of the fact that these are the only two cases which have come to my notice.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Mr. Westwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction of county councils with the whole framework of the weights and measures legislation, on the grounds that it is incomplete and imperfect and that it provides inadequate protection for shopkeepers, farmers, and the general public; and is he prepared to set up a Departmental Committee to consider and report as to what amendments and extension of the existing weights and measures legislation are desirable for the better protection of the public?

Mr. McLean Watson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up a committee of inquiry into the working of existing weights and measures legislation?

Mr. Stanley: On my present information, I do not agree that the protection given by existing weights and measures legislation is, in general, inadequate. I am, however, arranging for an examination of the existing regulations, and when

this has been completed I shall be in a better position to consider whether amending legislation or a committee of inquiry is necessary.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is practically the unanimous opinion of the associations of county councils both in Scotland and in England, and also of the associations of inspectors of weights and measures, that the present law is quite inadequate, and will he be prepared, before deciding not to set up a Departmental Committee, to receive deputations from the associations of county councils and these inspectors?

Mr. Stanley: I know that we have received from the associations certain proposals for legislation, but it would appear that a great many of the points they raise can be met by an alteration of the regulations, and that is why I said that I would prefer to await an examination of the whole of the regulations to see what can be done by their amendment before deciding whether it is necessary to amend the legislation as well.

Mr. Westwood: Can the Minister say how long it will take to carry through the investigation?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. R. Gibson: Have there been any changes in the regulations since automatic scales have come into general use?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say without notice.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause will apply to the revisions in the United Kingdom and United States of America tariff on all articles included in the Anglo-American Trade Agreement; and what is the estimated effect?

Mr. Stanley: Concessions accorded by this country to the United States of America will be extended equally to all other foreign countries. I understand that concessions accorded by the United States of America to this country will be extended equally to all other foreign countries except Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the suggested modification of the Most-Favoured-Nation


Clause in certain exceptional circumstances, and because of the highly complicated nature of the Agreement in that respect, is the right hon. Gentleman considering the issue of a White Paper on the subject, so that hon. Members may be informed?

Mr. Stanley: I have to answer another question on that point in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider publishing a White Paper explaining the effect of the concessions in the Anglo-American Trade Agreement both on imports from and exports to America?

Mr. Stanley: I propose to publish next Thursday in the "Board of Trade Journal" a statement showing in parallel columns the present rates of duty and the new rates which will come into force in the United States of America in all cases where a change in the rate of duty will result from the coming into force of the Agreement. A similar statement as regards changes made by the Canada-United States of America Agreement will be published as soon as full particulars of that Agreement are received. Changes in the United Kingdom tariff will be effected by means of Treasury Orders which will he laid before the House shortly, and I am considering the question of publishing at the same time a statement explaining these changes.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in publishing the statement to which he referred, to give information with regard to the possible effect of the multiplication of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in certain circumstances and the effect upon the exchange rates?

Mr. Stanley: I should certainly like to consult hon. Members of all parties as to any information I could give them, but of course I am very anxious not to give in a Command Paper, which is an official document, something which must be a matter of opinion on the part of the person who writes it. If hon. Members of all parties will give me their ideas as to the sort of information they would like, I will see whether it is possible to give it to them.

Mr. Shinwell: While appreciating the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy hon. Members on these matters, may I ask him whether he is aware that considerable mystification exists as to the operation of the exchange rates and the effects of the modification in certain circumstances of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and that it is desirable that we should have information on those matters?

Mr. Stanley: I think a much more practical course would be if I were to have a consultation with some hon. Members. I am only too anxious to give the House the fullest information possible.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman's statement be in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Stanley: Orders will be laid.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a statement by the Board of Trade: will that be in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Stanley: I referred to Orders which would be laid and accompanied by an explanatory note.

GERMAN MOTOR CARS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of German-made cars imported into the United Kingdom and British countries overseas, respectively, in the last 12 months; and whether it is proposed to take any action to prevent the excessive importation of these cars where export is heavily subsidised?

Mr. Stanley: With the hon. Member's permission. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing, so far as the information is available from the German statistics the number of motor cars exported from Germany to the United Kingdom and other British countries during the 12 months ended September, 1938. If the British manufacturers consider that there is a case for further protection of the United Kingdom home market against foreign imports of motor cars of less than 25 horse-power, it is open to them to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase in the rate of duty.

Mr. Shinwell: Have any representations on this matter been made to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Stanley: There is no need to make representations to me. Owing to the action of the Government in the summer in transferring these duties from the Budget, bringing them under the purview of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, manufacturers make their applications direct to the committee.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of the German subsidy on these cars?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Following is the statement:


Table showing, so far as the information is available from the German statistics, the number of motor cars (excluding omnibuses) exported from Germany to the United Kingdom and other British countries during the 12 months ended September, 1938.


Exported from Germany to
Number of motor cars (excluding omnibuses).


United Kingdom
3,942


Eire
102


British India (including Burma)
1,984


Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States and British East Indies.
196


Ceylon and Maldive Islands
168


Union of South Africa
2,731


Gold Coast
85


Kenya and Uganda
64(a)


Nigeria
176(a)


British West Indies and other British Possessions in Central and South America.
222


(a) This figure may be slightly defective.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

TONNAGE.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of British merchant ships, excluding tankers, available in 1914 for the carriage of food, raw materials and men; and the corresponding number at present?

Mr. Stanley: According to the best estimates that can be made, vessels of 1000 tons gross and over registered in the United Kingdom, excluding sailing ships, tankers and non-trading ships, numbered in 1914, 4,282 vessels of 16,812,000 tons gross and in 1938, 2,659 vessels of 13,729,000 tons gross.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this country regards the

falling off as extremely grave? Can he indicate whether the Government are taking any steps now to meet the demands of the situation?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I answered a question on this very point a week ago, and I told the House that, with regard to the shipping industry, I was awaiting a report from them which I hoped to receive soon, and that I was in communication at the same time with the shipbuilding industry to see what could be done.

Mr. Gallacher: Would there not be many more ships available for carrying food if it had not been for the activities of the Italian bombers?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is this decline in numbers and tonnage compensated by higher average speeds?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, certainly, arid, of course, by greater unloading facilities.

Mr. Robert Gibson: How many ships were laid up on these dates, in particular on the Clyde?

Mr. Stanley: I must have notice of that question.

SHIPBUILDING (BERTHS).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total berths available in Great Britain for the building of naval and merchant ships are now occupied by naval and by merchant ships, respectively, in construction; and what is the estimated proportion of berths suitable for merchant shipbuilding which will be idle by the summer of 1939?

Mr. Stanley: Of the berths available for the building of naval vessels and seagoing merchant vessels, about 18 per cent. are now occupied by naval vessels and 32 per cent. by merchant vessels. I am not able to venture an estimate of the position in the middle of next year.

Mr. Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend see that, according to the present tendency, it would appear that by the summer of next year only about one-quarter of the berths of the country suitable for merchant shipping are likely to be occupied?

Mr. Stanley: I said I was unable to give an estimate for obvious reasons, but I appreciate the position.

SEAMEN'S COMPENSATION (SPANISH TRADE).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the specific functions of the National Maritime Board in the settlement of compensation claims by the Burgos authorities for the killing and wounding of British seamen engaged in the Spanish trade; what are the amount and source of funds at the disposal of the National Maritime Board for meeting compensation claims; and whether he can give details of settlements reached, with the names of the persons and vessels involved, the amounts paid, and the dates of payment?

Mr. Stanley: The conditions under which officers and seamen shall be employed in vessels trading to Spain have been embodied in agreements reached by the National Maritime Board, and form part of the normal contracts under which crews are engaged. The responsibility for the payment of any compensation due under a particular contract is that of the owners of the vessel concerned, and not that of the National Maritime Board. I understand that most owners cover their possible liability by insurance, and that claims arising out of the contract are being dealt with by protection associations or underwriters in the customary way. Details of the compensation paid, in readiness for the submission of shipowners' and insurers' claims, which it is proposed to make in due course to the Spanish authorities, have not yet been lodged with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that within the terms of the Maritime Board an agreement exists between the seamen and the owners that the maximum payable for compensation through that organisation is £600 and if that is so, is not his information incorrect?

Mr. Stanley: I do not at the moment see the bearing of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman stated that it is not paid through the Maritime Board as such, whereas an agreement actually exists with the board and the seamen that compensation shall be paid to a maximum of £600 through the board. If that is so, is not the right hon. Gentleman misinformed?

Mr. Stanley: If that is so, I am misinformed, and I will inquire into it again, but I have given the House the information given to me.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that the compensation arranged for under the scheme for which the seamen and the employers are responsible is the normal rate of compensation which is ordinarily paid in cases of accident?

Mr. Stanley: indicated assent.

SEAMEN.

Mr. Loftus: asked the President of the Board of Trade the decrease since 1913 in the number of British seamen employed in the mercantile marine?

Mr. Stanley: At the last pre-war census of seamen, taken in 1911, 136,58o British seamen (other than lascars) were employed on sea-trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The corresponding total as at 15th June, 1937, the latest available, amounted to 109,727. These totals are not strictly comparable, owing, inter alia, to the separation of Eire from the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Gibson: Has there been a proportionate or more than proportionate falling off in the number of officers in the Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Stanley: I should recuire notice of that question.

CARRIAGE OF FOODSTUFFS (FOREIGN SHIPS).

Commander Marsden: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that of 18 fixtures of ships to carry grain from the Danube for Government food stocks 14 were foreign and only four British; and, as a large number of foreign-going tramp ships are laid up in the United Kingdom, he will take steps to ensure that as far as possible in future all Government purchases of foodstuffs abroad should be brought to this country in British ships?

Mr. Stanley: The contract for the purchase of this wheat was completed towards the end of October. It provided for approximately twice as much wheat to be shipped from the Danube as from the Black Sea. For the Danube shipments, although directions were given


that British ships were to be employed as far as possible and that a preferential rate could be given, it was necessary in the initial stages to obtain options on a certain amount of foreign tonnage immediately available, since ships had to be obtained before the Danube navigation risks became too great on account of ice. Between 20 and 30 British owners, including owners of ships known to be laid up, were approached, but they either had no suitable ships in position or were not anxious to charter them for the Danube trade. It was, therefore, necessary to exercise the options on the foreign tonnage, and also to charter some additional foreign tonnage. After the most urgent requirements were covered, chartering was confined to British ships. As regards the Black Sea requirements, where the same considerations of urgency do not apply, no foreign ships have yet been chartered, and British ships will, it is hoped, be able to carry the whole of our requirements. As regards the second part of the question, it is the rule that only in exceptional conditions are ships other than British to be used for carrying Government cargoes.

Commander Marsden: Is it to be clearly understood that it is not the small difference of freight which prohibits the chartering of British vessels?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, as I say, instructions were given that preferential rates should be given to British ships.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: If and when shipowners come to the Government for any further assistance, will the right hon. Gentleman take notice that they have, in fact, refused to carry cargoes?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that is a fair way of putting it. This, after all, was a special transaction and the chartering would have been for one voyage only, and in these circumstances it may very well not have been economically possible for the shipowner to recommission a ship simply for that one purpose.

Mr. R. Gibson: What was the nationality of the non-British ships that were chartered?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot say without notice, but several of them, I know, were Greek.

SHIPS (INSPECTION).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the annual report of the Tyne Port Health Authority for 1937, in which it is stated that the inspection of vessels revealed 1,691 defects calling for remedy; that many of these defects were concerned with heating, doors, floors, bunks, lavatories, dampness due to leaking decks, ports, skylights, and decklights, the presence of dirt, vermin, litter, discarded bedding, and the need of painting; and whether, in view of the fact that many of these defects remain unremedied, he will take such steps as will ensure a stricter adherence to principles of comfort and hygiene?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen this report. The port health authorities have full powers under the Public Health Acts to require the abatement, or themselves to abate on ships within their districts insanitary conditions or other nuisances injurious to health. The duty of seeing that crew's quarters are kept in a fit condition falls primarily upon the master as representative of the owner, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 30 of the Crew Space Instructions of 1937, of which I am sending him a copy. I may add that a joint committee set up by the Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen is at present considering methods of improving the standard of comfort and cleanliness in crews' accommodation, and also that close co-operation is maintained between officers of port health authorities and Board of Trade surveyors.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice that according to this report less than half the defects have been remedied? That being so, I presume that the port authorities are not doing their job effectually, and will the Minister undertake to call their attention to the fact that these ships have not been put into proper condition?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I will certainly inquire into it. We should like to cooperate with the port authorities to the fullest extent, and help them to use their powers to rectify these matters.

BOARD OF TRADE CHARTERS (DEFENCE SERVICES).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the number of occasions during the previous three years in which his Department has been called upon, by either the Defence Departments or the India Office, to arrange the charters of vessels?

Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade are responsible for the provision of commercial shipping to meet the needs of the Defence Services. In the last three years, the numbers of charters made by the Board for the conveyance of troops, mechanised transport, horses, stores, and other miscellaneous services were as follow:


1936
151


1937
130


1938 (up to 18th November)
283


These figures do not include arrangements made by the Board for the conveyance, by the regular Lines, of individuals or parties of Service Department personnel or stores belonging to the Service Departments. The requirements of the India Office are submitted to the Board of Trade by the War Office.

Mr. Day: Do the Board of Trade receive anything from the different Departments towards the cost of the work which they do?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say without notice what are the actual financial arrangements between one Department and another.

INQUIRY (REPORT).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive a report from the committee now engaged in considering the state of the Mercantile Marine?

Mr. Stanley: I presume that the hon. Member's question refers to the inquiry now being conducted by the Shipping Industry. I am informed that the inquiry is being pressed forward with all despatch, but that no date can yet be indicated for its completion.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the committee dealing with every aspect of the Mercantile Marine, or only with that relating to the Pacific?

Mr. Stanley: Oh, no, Sir; they are dealing with every aspect.

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (PREFERENCE STOCK).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention was drawn to the rejection of the proposal to infringe the rights of preference stockholders under the reorganisation of the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association; and, in view of the growing tendency to destroy the safeguards in contracts under which preference capital is raised. will he, when amending the Companies Act, 1929, abolish the use of preference stocks and shares in the future capital construction of limited liability concerns?

Mr. Stanley: My attention has been drawn to the fact that a scheme put forward by the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association, Limited, for modification of the rights of the preference stockholders was not approved. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out to my hon. Friend that the rights of preference shareholders cannot be varied except by a special resolution passed in acordance with Section 117 of the Companies Act, 1929, which provides that such a resolution must be passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the members affected who vote.

UNIT TRUSTS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending legislation, he has taken steps to protect the public by requiring that those responsible for unit trusts shall provide that the method of computation and the accuracy of advertised yields on the trust units shall be certified by an independent accountant?

Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade have no power to impose the requirements suggested by my hon. Friend, but I understand that the matters to which he refers are being considered by the council of the Unit Trusts Association in consultation with the accountants.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL ARMY RESERVE.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement as to the position of the various


classes of the members of the Territorial Army Reserve, in view of the uncertainty as to whether they are free to volunteer for air-raid precautions work?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): There are two classes: (i) The Territorial Army Reserve of Officers; (ii) A limited reserve of other ranks who are employés of firms enlisted to undertake the defence of the works of these firms against aircraft attack. In peace, membership of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers is entirely voluntary, and the obligation which each member assumes only becomes compulsory on the embodiment of the Territorial Army. If a member desires to volunteer for such air-raid precautions work as will make him unavailable in time of emergency, he should first resign from the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers, otherwise he is liable to be called up compulsorily for service. The limited reserve of other ranks of the Territorial Army have accepted a definite obligation for a fixed period, as long as they continue to be employed with the same firm, and they are not available to volunteer for air-raid precautions work.

Mr. Garro Jones: What is the position of officers who volunteered for the Ex-officer Emergency Reserve and who have received no reply whatever to their offer, if they now desire to offer themselves for some other form of national service, such as air-raid precautions work?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is quite a different subject.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is referred to in the last part of my question.

CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the whole of the equipment required by a soldier on joining the Army is now provided for him at the public expense; and, if not, whether he will state which articles the soldier is compelled to pay for himself?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The articles of clothing and equipment required by War Office regulations to be obtained by a soldier on joining the Army are provided without expense to the soldier. Further, special instructions have been given that soldiers shall be protected from unauthorised

expense on account of regimental customs.

Mr. Day: Does that also include the padlocks that a soldier requires on his lockers?

RESERVE OFFICERS (TRAINING FACILITIES).

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider allowing facilities to those officers on the Regular Army Reserve who so desire to keep themselves abreast of modern developments in training and equipment?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. This will be one of the matters to be considered in connection with Army Estimates for 1939.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will these officers receive facilities to keep abreast of modern political developments?

Mr. Churchill: Will this system be extended to cover the Reservists, men as well as officers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I could not call this a system, but the whole matter will be considered.

EMERGENCY WORKERS (REINSTATEMENT).

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of specific cases in which civilians called up for any branch of Army work at the time of the recent international crisis have not been reinstated in their positions; and whether in every case he has made representations to the firm concerned?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I called for a report from every Territorial Army Association asking for specific cases in which men called up in the recent emergency were not re-employed on their release. From this inquiry it appears that out of some 50,000 called up, there were only 94 cases of this kind brought to my notice. This number includes those who were in casual or seasonal employment. I requested that in every case special efforts were to be made to secure the reinstatement or placing of the men concerned. The Territorial associations have made intensive efforts in every case and the Employment Exchanges, at the request of my right hon. Friend, have supplemented these efforts. I have been informed up to date of 43 cases in which the men had been found employment either with their former employers


or elsewhere. From the figures I have given, the House will see the extent to which employers have displayed the public spirit which one would expect.

Mr. Petherick: In cases where no excuse can be found, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the names of the recalcitrant employers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. If I am asked a question I will answer it.

GUARDS BATTALIONS (BREN GUNS AND ANTI-TANK RIFLES).

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of their establishments of Bren guns and anti-tank rifle equipment has been issued to Guards battalions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: With the general concurrence of the House I have invariably refrained from giving particulars of our armaments where corresponding particulars are not open to us concerning foreign countries. In view, however, of specific allegations which are calculated to have an unfortunate effect, I am prepared exceptionally to state that of the 10 Guards battalions, eight have had complete issues of their war establishments both of Bren guns and anti-tank rifles.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: In view of those facts, is it not most misleading that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) should state, as he did in this House last week—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. E. Smith: This is an inspired question.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman in the past to give information on this subject when questions have been put to him from this side of the House, might I ask whether he is now prepared to make a clean breast of our deficiencies?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think that that is true. I have never been reluctant to give information. When any responsible person has asked me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—in which, of course, I include my colleagues in this House—for information which I could possibly give, I have always given it. It is quite a different matter to broadcast to the public

information, the corresponding information to which is not given by foreign countries.

Mr. Lawson: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that very much the same equipment in those particulars applies to the infantry generally?

Mr. Garro Jones: Of course, he cannot. That is why he made an exception.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the policy of reticence now does more harm than good, and will he take every opportunity of giving good news to the House as soon as it is available?

FOREIGN POLICY (NEWSPAPERS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister to what extent recently advice has been officially tendered by Members of the Government to owners of newspapers as to what attitude they should take up on the subject of foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: No such advice has been tendered.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that during recent weeks representations have been made by members of the inner Cabinet to owners and editors of newspapers as to the way in which they should treat the subject of foreign affairs? If it was not done officially, was it done unofficially?

The Prime Minister: I have said that no such advice had been tendered.

Mr. Mander: I am asking the Prime Minister whether it was done unofficially?

The Prime Minister: Neither officially nor unofficially.

Mr. Mander: In that case, may I ask—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked a question and has twice had an answer.

Mr. Mander: May I put another supplementary question on quite a different point?

Mr. Speaker: Not if it is a different point.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider granting relief from Schedule D on money expended on preparing permanent trenches, bomb-proof shelters, fire-fighting equipment, etc.?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on 18th March last, and to the hon. Member for Tottenham, North (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on 7th April, of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. Higgs: Does not the Chancellor consider that the conditions have altered very considerably since those statements were made; and is he not aware that manufacturers are very reluctant to proceed with trench work of that description, owing to the heavy taxation?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, while it is necessary to consider the question of expense in these matters, the expense has to fall somewhere, and, if it does not fall on one set of shoulders, it falls on the shoulders of the general taxpayer.

Mr. Higgs: May I remind the Chancellor that I asked whether it is not a fact that the conditions have altered considerably since he last made a statement on this matter?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look again at the Debate on the Finance Bill when this matter was discussed and when the reasons were explained. I do not think they have altered in the meantime.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Charles Vernon Oldfield Bartlett, esquire, for the County of Somerset (Bridgwater Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

PENSIONS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

Sir J. Simon: "to amend the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, and other Pensions Acts,"presented by Mr. Stephen; supported by Mr. Maxton, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. McGovern; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 131.

DivisionNo.5.]
AYES.
[3.48p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, A (Rutherglen)
Dower, Major A. V.G.


Albery, Sir Irving 
Chapman, Sir S.(Edinburgh, S.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Sc'h Univ's)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Duggan, H. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, J. A.
Dunglass, Lord


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Atholl, Duchess of 
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Ellis, Sir G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emery, J. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M.(Norfolk, N.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M.(E'nburgh, W.)
Fildes, Sir H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cox, Trevor
Fleming, E. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cranborne, Viscount 
Fremantle, Sir F. E. 


Brass, Sir W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Furness, S. N.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Critchley, A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page 
Gluckstein, L. H.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley 
Gower, Sir R. V.


Brown, Rt-Hon. E. (Leith)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cross, R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Crowder, J F. E.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Butler, R. A.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Carver, Major W. H.
De Chair, S.S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. W.(City of Chester)
De la Bère, R.
Grimston, R. V.


Cayzer, Sir H. R.(Portsmouth, S.)
Denville, Alfred
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dodd, J. S.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D.W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Doland, G. F.
Hambro, A. V.


Channon, H.
Donner, P. W
Hannah, I. C.




Harvey, Sir G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moreing, A. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Higgs, W.F.
Nicholson, G.(Farnham)
Smith, Sir R. W.(Aberdeen)


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh 
Smithers, Sir W.


Holmes, J. S.
Patrick, C. M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hopkinson, A.
Peake, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R.J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S.(Southport)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hunloke, H. P.
Pilkington, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hunter, T.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Radford, E. A.
Thomas, J. P. L.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Joel, D. J. B.
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Sir R.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Train, Sir J.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kimball, L.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Turton, R. H.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, Sir D. D.(Down)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lees-Jones, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Warrender, Sir V.


Levy, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lewis, O.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Liddall, W. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Lindsay, K. M.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Lipson, D. L.
Rowlands, G.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Loftus, P. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A.T. (Hitchin)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Salt, E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McKie, J. H.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Magnay, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Young, A. S. L.(Partick)


Marsden, Commander A.
Sandys, E. D.



Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Selley, H. R.
Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.(Tamworth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)



Mills, Sir F.(Leyton, E.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R.T.H.
Lee, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Foot, D. M.
Leonard, W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Frankel, D.
Leslie, J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gallacher, W.
Logan, D. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barnes, A. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGhee, H. G.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Batey, J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacNeill Weir, L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, F.


Bromfield, W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.


Brooke, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Burke, W. A.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, T.
Hardie, Agnes
Muff, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Owen, Major G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, T.(Tradeston)
Pearson, A.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Daggar, G.
John, W.
Poole, C. C.


Dalton, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.


Davidson, J. J.(Maryhill)
Jones, A. C.(Shipley)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Davies, S. O.(Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lathan, G.
Sanders, W. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton. T. M.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.







Silkin, L.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Westwood, J.


Silverman, S. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Thorne, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tomlinson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Walker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, F. C.



Stephen, C.
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves.


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)
Welsh, J. C.



Question put, and agreed to.

HAILE SELASSIE, EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA (PROPERTY).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to safeguard the title of Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, to property within the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
The House will remember that last Session I was given leave to introduce a similar Bill. Since then events have taken place which render it of even greater importance that this Bill should be placed on the Statute Book. The House will know that in January of last year the Emperor brought an action in the courts of this country seeking to recover the sum of £10,600 payable under an agreement made between the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on behalf of the Emperor of Ethiopia and a British company known as Cable and Wireless, Limited. The claim was in respect of wireless services, and in the action the company admitted liability in respect of this sum, but a claim to the money was received on behalf of the Italian Government.
On 27th July of this year judgment was eventually given by the judge who tried the case, Mr. Justice Bennett, ordering payment of the sum claimed to the Emperor. On 3rd November an appeal was lodged by the defendant company, and during the hearing counsel on behalf of the defendant company quoted from a statement made in this House by the Prime Minister on 2nd November announcing that new credentials were to be issued to the British Ambassador in Rome according legal recognition to Italian sovereignty over Abyssinia. It was further argued that the granting of de jure recognition is retrospective in law. If this be so, the effect will be that the Emperor's claim to this money—I again remind the House that the judge ordered payment to him in July of this year—cannot succeed unless his rights are protected by this House. In these circumstances the hearing was adjourned over

four weeks, and when the hearing is resumed on 1st December the Court of Appeal will doubtless decide against the Emperor on the ground that the court can no longer recognise him as de jure Ruler of Ethiopia.
The position to-day is in several respects unprecedented. Ethiopia is still a member of the League of Nations. The Emperor is still regarded as the de facto and de jure Ruler of Abyssinia by a large section of the people of that country, and yet, apparently, to-day in our own country he has to be regarded as a private citizen and treated as such by the courts of the country. The object of the Bill is to secure that this sum of £10,600 shall be paid to the Emperor and not to the Italian Government. The Bill provides that the Emperor shall continue to be regarded as the de facto and de jure Ruler of Ethiopia for the purpose of proceedings in respect of any property within the jurisdiction of the British Courts.
I would like to emphasise the fact that the Bill will not confer any new rights upon the Emperor, but merely preserve rights accruing to him at the time of the Italian invasion of his country. It is true that the Government have now recognised Italy as the Sovereign Ruler of Ethiopia, and I am afraid that that cannot be undone. But the fact remains that the Italian invasion was an unlawful act and in breach of the Covenant of the League. Abyssinia was, and is today, a member of the League and entitled to the protection of the League. Our own country was legally and morally bound to stand by her. Recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia may have been politically expedient, but I believe it can never be morally justifiable. Surely no decent-minded person can contemplate the tragic position of the Emperor and his country without feelings of shame and humiliation. Our Government with others indeed have purchased the friendship of Italy, but the price has been paid by the Emperor and people of Abyssinia.
In these circumstances, I submit that the least this House can do is to safeguard the rights of the Emperor. This Bill is put forward by Members of all parties, because we believe that the Italian Government have no moral right whatsoever to this money, and that it should be paid to the Emperor Haile Selassie as the lawful Ruler of Ethiopia when the transactions involved in this litigation took place. I, therefore, appeal to all sections of the House to support this Bill, not as a measure of charity, but as a small measure of justice in favour of a man whose tragic sufferings have won him the sympathy of us all.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir John Withers, Captain Cazalet, Duchess of Atholl, Miss Rathbone, Miss Lloyd George, Mr.NoelBaker, Mr. Harvey, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, and Colonel Wedgwood.

HAILE SELASSIE, EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA (PROPERTY) BILL,

" to safeguard the title of Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, to property within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am glad that this Bill, which is one of the first major Measures to be proposed this Session, is a Scottish Measure and one of which Scotland has great need. The Bill has now been published for nearly a fortnight and it has had a very good reception in Scotland. I have heard and seen a number of tributes to it. One would be warranted in thinking that "Even the ranks of Tuscany can scarce forbear to cheer," because the official Opposition Amendment gives some little, if grudging, recognition to the fact that anything in the way of increased subsidies may be helpful to the building of houses in Scotland. The Amendment goes on to refer to the absence of grants-in-aid for water supplies and drainage. But I would remind the House that this is a housing Bill and not a water and drainage Bill. There may be more said on these subjects later, but my explanation of the Bill will lie in the realm of housing and will relate to matters in which there has been a strong demand for improvement from the local authorities.
The main purpose of the Bill is to make further financial provision to enable local authorities to continue their attack on the slums and on overcrowding. The Bill has two main lines of attack. It makes adjustments in the rate of Exchequer contributions and also makes provision for attacking the housing problem in another way. That is, it authorises the payment of special Exchequer contributions to an approved housing association to enable it to build demonstration housing schemes outside the Special Areas without any cost to the local authorities. Side by side with this new arrangement the Special Areas Housing Association will extend and accelerate its housing programme within the Special Areas.
Before I explain the provisions of the Bill in more detail, it would no doubt be convenient to the House if for a few

minutes I were to review the present position of Scottish housing as we see it today. I shall not give an exhaustive review, for that is generally done on the Estimates. I do not wish to weary the House by repeating figures and statistics that have so often been given in previous Debates, but there are certain figures that we must emphasise on all possible occasions so as to impress on all concerned with the social welfare of our country the gravity of the Scottish housing position and the necessity of taking special measures to deal with it. In spite of all that has been done for Scottish housing we still need a number of new working-class houses which has been given as something in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million. I recognise that this year's quota or contribution of houses built by local authorities and by private enterprise (which I estimate roughly as about 19,000, or perhaps rather more by local authorities, and about 7,000 by private enterprise) will help towards the deficiency which I have mentioned; but it still means that we must build houses to the number of about one-fifth of the total number of houses existing in Scotland to-day, and that we still have to re house in more suitable conditions about a million of our people. I do not think there will be any disagreement, to whatever party he may belong, as to the magnitude of the task.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 19,000 completed this year. Does that include timber houses built by local authorities?

Mr. Colville: Yes. Not many have been completed already, but the figure would include any that have been completed by local authorities. I do not wish to minimise what has been done. In this post-war housing effort Scotland has made a great advance. Local authorities, large and small, have had a great deal of work to do, and very great efforts have been made in many districts. Nevertheless, progress has lagged behind the need. Since I took office as Secretary of State for Scotland I have made it my business to acquire first-hand knowledge of the problem. I have visited the sites of many housing schemes of local authorities in order to discuss the problem of meeting the demand for working-class houses, and I have come back with a greater conviction than ever that housing


is extremely important to Scotland and that we must do what we can to help.
One of the features of the housing position that has caused us much concern has been the steep rise in building costs that has occurred over the past three years. I appointed recently a Departmental Committee to inquire into the reasons for the increase. That Committee is now busy taking evidence and I hope to have its report early in the New Year. Another of our difficulties has been a shortage of skilled labour in certain trades. To counteract this shortage in some measure we have given every encouragement to the building of houses by alternative methods of construction that make the minimum demand on the types of labour that are short and that will make the most use of the types of labour that are plentiful. This encouragement to the building of houses by alternative methods is being further developed in the Bill. By using alternative methods we not only accelerate house building, but we enable men who would otherwise be idle to be actively employed in improving the housing conditions of their fellow workers. I should explain that we do not regard building by alternative methods as anything more than a supplementary way of providing houses, and that we expect local authorities to push on with all possible speed with building by ordinary methods. I should be sorry to see recognised methods of building in Scotland falling back in any way. But we have been driven to alternative methods by the shortage of labour in relation to our housing needs, and I am glad to say that the experiments that have been carried out over the past year have shown that a thoroughly satisfactory house can be produced by methods hitherto little used in Scotland.
One of the satisfying features about housing in the past two or three years has been a marked improvement in the design of houses built by local authorities. I hope that we shall see further improvements as a result of the recent competition for designs of rural cottages. It may interest the House to know that I intend to take part in a small function in Edinburgh on Friday at which the prizes promised by the donor will be presented to the successful competitors in rural house designs. I attach importance to the securing of good designs.

They do not necessarily cost more than bad designs.
The House will remember that on 29th March of this year, in a Debate on the Housing (Continuation of Contributions) Order, my predecessor at the Scottish Office stated that it was the Government's intention to continue discussions that were then proceeding with a sub-committee appointed by the Associations of Local Authorities, and that if as a result of those discussions any change in housing subsidies were found to be necessary, the change would take effect as from 1st January, 1939. This Bill gives effect to that promise. That is the reason why I am anxious to see it passed into law and placed on the Statute Book so that we can make the increased rates of subsidies available to local authorities by 1st January next. It is right that I should express publicly my indebtedness to the local authorities' sub-committee for their helpful attitude throughout the discussions with them. With the growing complexity of public administration, consultation with those who reflect public opinion is becoming more and more necessary, and I believe firmly in the policy that we have followed on this occasion in maintaining close touch with the representatives of local authorities in the preparation of legislation.
As regards the proposals in the Bill, the main interest of the House will, no doubt, lie in the new rates of subsidies. Hon. Members will be aware that the present rates of Exchequer contribution differ according to the purpose for which the house is built. The present subsidy for slum clearance is £2 l0s. per person (£2 15s. in rural areas) and the overcrowding subsidy, is £6 15s. per new house. Both subsidies are payable as an annual contribution for 40 years. The proposals in the Bill are that there should be one consolidated subsidy for these two purposes. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to justify that consolidation, but I would say that whatever may have been the case for differing subsidies in the past, I do not think there is any reason for continuing differentiation now. When local authorities are building houses, it is not necessary for them to distinguish in advance to which of the two purposes they are to be put. Indeed, it is the normal practice to rehouse in the same housing scheme some persons from overcrowded houses and some from unfit condemned houses. Nor can it be said that


there is any difference in cost between houses provided for slum clearance and houses provided for decrowding purposes. In these circumstances to have two differing rates of subsidy leads to administrative difficulties without, so far as I can see, any corresponding advantage. We have, however, made provision to ensure that, as in the 1930 Act, the larger house will attract the larger subsidy.
The proposed new Exchequer contributions are £10s. for a three-roomed house, 15s. for a four-roomed house, and £13 for a five-roomed house. I feel confident that the House will accept these proposals as a generous contribution by the Exchequer for the solution of our housing problems. The contributions are considerably greater than the housing subsidy rates paid in England, but I am sure English Members realising the difficulties we are up against in Scotland and the leeway we have to make up will not in any way grudge that difference. These new rates can be regarded as having fully met the claims which have been stressed for some time by local authorities that the overcrowding subsidy under the 1935 Act should be substantially increased on account of the rise in the cost of building. The new subsidies will be payable to local authorities for all houses completed for slum clearance, redevelopment and de-crowding purposes from 1st January, 1939, to 30th September, 1942, so that local authorities can look forward to three and three quarter years of this generous rate of subsidy.
The House will wish to know how the new subsidy rates compare on average with those at present payable. At the present time there is always a tendency in this House to look every gift horse in the mouth. That is a proper procedure, and I hope to show on this occasion that the horse has good teeth and that it is a thoroughly reliable animal. At the present time the average unit subsidy payable under the 1930 Act is about £14 per house. The subsidy under the 1935 Act is £6 15s. per house. Rather more houses are being built for overcrowding than for slum clearance in Scotland, and the present average of the two subsidies together is about £10.
But this is not the whole story. Local authorities have up till now been dealing in the main with the larger families. The average size of family remaining to be

dealt with under slum clearance in the next few years will gradually he smaller so that the present average of £14 under the 1930 Act would inevitably have fallen considerably during the next subsidy period if we had retained the unit system. This point was consistently made to us by the local authorities during our discussions with them. Naturally they tackled the larger families first, and are working through to the smaller families. While we have not sufficient data to make a close estimate, we think it not unlikely that the average unit grant that would have been payable over the whole of the next subsidy period might have fallen to £11.
When we look at the overcrowding position—this has an important bearing on the value of this provision to Scotland in the future—we find that about four times as many houses are required for the relief of overcrowding as for slum clearance. The proportion of houses built under the overcrowding provisions and qualifying for the lower rate of £6 15s. would inevitably have increased, because although there is much slum property in Scotland there are four times as many houses required for the relief of overcrowding as for slum clearance. Taking these two factors together, it is probable that the average subsidy that would have been payable under the present Acts would not have exceeded £8, whereas the subsidies which I have announced are £10 10s. for a three-roomed house, £11 15s. for a four-roomed house, and £13 for a five-roomed house during The first subsidy period.
Exchequer contributions for housing inevitably involve a contribution from local rates. In the past the ratio between Exchequer and rate contributions has varied considerably. The Government consider that a fair ratio for normal application for housing would be two to one, that is to say, that the State should pay two-thirds of the cost of housing. This principle has already been applied in England and Wales under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938. It is now recognised in this Bill for application in normal circumstances to Scotland. We have, however, had in mind the special urgency of the position in Scotland and, therefore, in the first subsidy period, that is, until September, 1942, the rate contributions required of local authorities will be substantially less than those that would


have been payable on a two to one basis. We hope that this concession will encourage local authorities to proceed with their housing programmes with all possible speed during the next three or four years.
The rate contributions proposed in the Bill are £4 10s. for a three-roomed house, £4 15s. for a four-roomed house, and £5 for a five-roomed house. The Bill provides that for purposes of Exchequer and rate contributions a house of less than three rooms will be regarded as a three-roomed house, and a house of more than five rooms will be regarded as a five-roomed house. In case there should be any misconception I should like to make it quite clear that the reference to houses of less than three rooms does not imply any departure from policy in this matter. It is my view—and I am supported by every committee that has inquired into the question—that there are at present far too many one- and two-apartment houses in Scotland. Only lately in answer to a question I disclosed that at the last date at which information was available there were in Glasgow 35,000 houses of one apartment occupied and 110,000 houses of two apartments occupied. I do not need to labour that point. Some say that we should go in for building a number of two-apartment houses, but I would ask them to bear in mind that, speaking generally, in Scotland there are too many one- and two-apartment houses. Our policy is therefore to approve two-apartment houses only if they are built for use by old people, and then only if the circumstances of the area justify that provision.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman define the areas?

Mr. Colville: I cannot give the hon. Member geographical details, but I do know that in certain areas this provision of houses for old people is very much in demand. I know of some areas in my own constituency and other places where such houses have been put up and have been much valued. We do not propose to approve any one-apartment houses for subsidy purposes, although we shall continue to consider proposals in suitable circumstances for the provision of hostels for single persons. The Bill, indeed, makes fresh provision for hostels, and proposes that the Exchequer contribution for every part of the hostel designed as accommodation for a single person should

be £5 10s., the local authority's corresponding rate contribution being £2 15s. It is one of the essential features of the hostel that there should be a caretaker's house attached to it and the Clause has been drawn so as to permit of the proposed normal Exchequer contribution of £10 10s. for that part of the hostel. For a 12-roomed hostel with a caretaker's house the present Exchequer contribution is £52 10s., but under the Bill it will be £76 10s. There is thus a considerable incentive to proceed with these hostels where they are desirable and necessary.

Mr. Westwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the rate contribution will be?

Mr. Colville: I have not added it up, but I have said that the Exchequer contribution will be £5 10s. and the corresponding rate of contribution will be £2 15s.

Mr. Westwood: You have to multiply the £2 15s. by 12 to get the rate contribution as against the present rate contribution of £4 10s.

Mr. Colville: The State contribution is also considerably improved. The hon. Member knows that there is a history attached to that rate contribution which is more than meets the eye.
The next feature of the Bill with which I shall deal relates to some rather complicated provisions for the payment of additional Exchequer contributions in certain circumstances. Under the 1930 and 1935 Acts there are provisions enabling special contributions to be paid, subject to certain conditions, where local authorities have to incur special expense in purchasing or paying compensation for fit properties in clearance or redevelopment areas. The disappearance of the unit grant provisions as proposed in the Bill makes it necessary to recast the arrangements for clearance areas. So far as redevelopment areas are concerned, local authorities have consistently represented that the additional Exchequer contribution payable under the 1935 Act, which is limited to a maximum of £4 per house, is much too low to provide adequate compensation to local authorities for the extra expense they have to incur. The Bill proposes to combine the two existing provisions relating to clearance areas and redevelopment areas and to


increase the maximum additional Exchequer contribution to £15 per house.
Before being entitled to receive any additional contribution the local authority will have to show that because of the special expenditure it has to incur for the purposes I have mentioned, its loss on its housing operations as a whole is likely to be substantially greater than the normal loss. In other words, the local authority will have to show that in the absence of any special subsidy the rate charge to be borne per new house in connection with its house building as a whole would be materially higher than the amount of the statutory rate contribution. It is, of course, a corollary to this that if for any reason, such as falling costs, which I should like to see, a local authority's average rate charge per house for its ordinary house building on new sites is likely to be less than the statutory rate contribution, that advantage should be set off against any additional contribution the local authority might otherwise have obtained.
The Bill proposes two important extensions in the realm of the additional subsidies I have mentioned. One of them relates to clearance areas and the other to redevelopment areas. The additional subsidy for clearance areas applies at present only to the expense incurred in purchasing fit properties within the clearance area proper. We propose to extend this provision to include properties on land adjacent to the clearance area which have to be purchased to make the whole area a suitable shape for development. The other extension we propose is that the special redevelopment subsidy should no longer be confined to the large burghs but should apply anywhere where the conditions are satisfied. That has been welcomed by the local authorities.
Let me now say a word about tenements. Along with the new provision for clearance and redevelopment areas we have included a further provision which has not hitherto appeared in Scottish legislation. We propose to give the same additional subsidy, under the conditions I have described, for the building of tenements on expensive central sites in large burghs. This proposal is that result of our consideration of representations by local authorities that there are certain central sites eminently suitable for working-class

houses which cannot be brought within the redevelopment provisions, because those provisions require as a first essential that there should be at least 50 existing working-class houses on the site to be redeveloped.
We have, I think, all been conscious that, however necessary or desirable may be the building of new houses on the outskirts of our cities, local authorities would sooner or later have to pay increasing attention to the development of their central areas. I feel confident that the new proposals in the Bill will encourage local authorities to proceed energetically with this important aspect of housing, and that the result will be not only an improvement in the appearance of our towns, but the provision of houses nearer to the places where the tenants work. I do not intend to go back on the many fine housing schemes around our cities, but at the same time there is a necessity to keep an eye on the central parts of our large cities and see that they are not allowed to get into disrepute. I should like to make it clear at this stage that the £15 to which I have referred, is additional to the normal Exchequer contributions, but that it is a maximum and that the actual amount paid will depend oil the circumstances of each separate case. In the case of clearance areas the, additional expense incurred by local authorities is not very great, and it is improbable that any additional contribution that may be payable for clearance areas will reach anything like £15 which has been designed to cover the more expensive redevelopment areas. That is a point which was fully discussed with the local authorities. In respect of any additional Exchequer contribution received by a local authority under the provisions I have described, the local authority will be required to make an extra rate contribution equal to one-half of the additional Exchequer contribution.
Let me now say a word on another aspect of Scottish housing. We have preserved in the Bill a provision which first appeared in the 1935 Act. It authorises the payment of additional Exchequer contributions where the cost to the local authority is specially heavy because of the remoteness of the building site from centres of supply of labour and materials, and because of the impracticability of obtaining normal rents. Since 1935 this provision has been of considerable help


to some of the authorities in the Highlands and Islands. In reproducing it in this Bill we have found it possible to make an extension in its scope. At present it applies only to houses built to relieve overcrowding; under the proposals in the Bill it will apply also to houses for slum clearance. I do not think that there are many slums in these remote areas but there are a number of unfit houses with which we hope to deal in this way, and this enlargement of the provision of the 1935 Act has been sought by some of the outlying authorities. In passing, I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the fifth extension of the scope of existing subsidies which I have mentioned to-day. In connection with this special remote areas subsidy the local authority's statutory rate contribution will not be increased. In this respect it differs from the other additional contributions I have mentioned.
I come now to a feature of the Bill to which I attach great importance. We propose that, without any cost whatever to local authorities, arrangements should be made under which a housing association will be able to build a number of demonstration schemes outside the Special Areas. The object of this arrangement is to demonstrate over a wide area the possibilities of alternative methods of construction. The association will be expected to experiment freely in new methods and materials and in the organisation of building. The provisions in the Bill are limited to give a statutory authority for the payment of Exchequer contributions to the association, and the House will wish to know how we propose to get this new machine going. As hon. Members are aware, the Special Areas Housing Association is already building houses by alternative methods in the Special Areas. What we propose is that the association should be renamed and reconstituted to enable it to extend and accelerate its programme and to undertake the building of houses outwith as well as within the Special Areas. It is intended that the chairman of the association as reconstituted should in future be paid and should give his whole time to the work.
It would have given me great pleasure if Sir David Allan Hay, the present chairman, had been able to continue on this

new footing, but he has informed me that other claims on his time will make it impossible for him to do so. I need hardly say how much we regret his decision, and I think the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing our deep appreciation of the voluntary services he has given to the association. I know personally how much time and energy Sir David has devoted to the work of the association, and I feel that the preliminary work so ably done will make the enlarged programme of the new association so much the easier. I should like also to pay a tribute to the work of the other members of the association and to express the hope that we may have their continued co-operation in the new venture.
The reconstituted association will continue to operate as a housing association under the Housing Acts, that is, it will build in the area of a local authority only after agreement with the local authority, and the local authority will pass on to it the Exchequer contributions received from the Department for the houses built by the association. For houses built outside the Special Areas, the further sum required by the association, which in effect represents the rate contribution normally payable by local authorities, will be paid to the association direct by the Department under the provisions of the Bill. For houses built within the Special Areas, this part of the association's funds will be provided as at present out of the Special Areas Fund.

Mr. Stephen: How much is the chairman to be paid?

Mr. Colville: That has not been settled. We want to get the whole-time services of a satisfactory and able man. It is a matter of administration and is not in the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Why cannot it be a lady?

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Member has any lady in mind I shall be glad to have her name. Hon. Members will notice that in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill we estimate that by 30th September, 1942, the association will have built about 18,000 houses in the Special Areas and 7,500 outside those areas. All these houses will be built by alternative method of construction. This is an estimate


which I hope will be exceeded. I shall do all I can to see that the association has every facility for exceeding that estimate, and I hope that we shall also have the assistance of those who helped in the former housing association.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the Secretary of State tell us something about the organisation of alternative buildings?

Mr. Colville: Hon. Members will see that, apart from the impetus and encouragement given to the building of houses by local authorities through the increase in the subsidies, the direct contribution by the Government towards the solution of the housing problem is to be a substantial one.
It would be appropriate, I think, if I give at this stage some information as to the progress already made in alternative construction by the Special Areas Housing Association. The association was set up almost exactly a year ago. For the first few months it was necessarily engaged on preliminary organisation work and in discussions with the various local authorities. It is now well into its stride and is actively engaged in building work and in negotiating for sites. At present 124 timber houses and 494 concrete houses are under construction and schemes are well in hand for the building of a further 2,100 concrete houses and more than 2,000 timber houses. The local authorities are also experimenting on a variety of alternative methods. Proposals for the building by local authorities of about 1,400 timber houses and over 900 poured concrete houses have already been approved by the Department of Health. Further schemes are known to be in contemplation for about 1,400 timber houses and about 1100 concrete houses.

Mr. Buchanan: Is Glasgow included under any of those figures?

Mr. Colville: I understand that they contemplate building some concrete houses. I do not know whether they propose to build any timber ones.

Mr. Buchanan: Are they included in the figures that have been approved?

Mr. Colville: Not in the figures that have been approved, but in those in contemplation. I, myself, saw last month

some of the houses being built by both methods by the Lanarkshire County Council, and I am convinced that we shall have no regrets at having encouraged the use of alternative methods in present circumstances. I was particularly interested to see the number of men without previous building experience who can be usefully employed in the building of poured concrete houses. Since then, I have had further inquiries made. These inquiries show that in a housing scheme that is nearing completion, the weekly average proportion of such workers to bricklayers was about 40 to 1. It was also ascertained that in the building of a poured concrete house the average employment obtained by such workers was about 43 weeks. All these unemployed workers were obtained from the Employment Exchanges, and most of them were miners who had no prospect of employment at their own trade for the present. Therefore, in such building a useful contribution can be made to the problem of unemployment in the mining areas in other parts of Scotland if more of these houses can be built and are found to he satisfactory. I do not think the building trade in Scotland need be afraid of this, because there is work for all to do in satisfying the housing needs in Scotland at the present time.

Captain W. T. Shaw: How do the costs of these houses compare with the costs of similar houses in England?

Mr. Colville: I cannot give the exact figures at the moment, but in general, houses cost slightly more to build in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: How do the costs of these houses compare with the costs of ordinary-type houses?

Mr. Colville: They are very similar. They are not dearer, but there is not much saving in them.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Are they built more quickly?

Mr. Colville: Yes, rather more quickly, because there is much more labour readily obtainable for building them. I should like now to say word or two about one thing that the Bill does not contain. I am aware of the feeling which exists both inside the House and in Scotland in favour of legislation providing for State grants to assist the reconditioning of working-class property. I refer not only to the


limited proposals which hon. Members opposite make in their Amendment with regard to reconditioning houses, but also to the representations made by the local authorities with regard to grants for reconditioning generally. I welcome these representations as indicating the general resolve that Scottish housing conditions must be improved with the greatest possible speed. I do not seek to minimise the case for reconditioning, but I am afraid that I cannot at present make any promise to introduce legislation on this subject. We have submitted in the Bill which is now before the House generous proposals for assisting new construction both by local authorities and by the special housing company, both by normal and by alternative methods. Last Session legislation relating to rural housing was passed which was no less generous in its terms. We believe that the result will be the putting into effect at an early date of programmes of new construction which will fully tax the available resources of the building industry. And we believe that, in present circumstances, the best we can do for the improvement of Scottish housing is to push ahead with these programmes as rapidly as we possibly can. But having said that, I should like to assure the House that I do not by any means close my mind to the idea of reconditioning at a more opportune time.
In recent years the housing problem has been one that has caused successive holders of my office more concern than probably any other subject of Scottish administration. It is a subject on which, irrespective of party, all of us are working towards a common objective—the removal of the disgraceful conditions in which so many of our Scottish people still have to live. We have met with great difficulties in recent years, but it is our aim to remove those difficulties as quickly as possible.
The main difficulties have been threefold. First, finance—and as to this, I think we have shown clearly in this Bill that great as are the demands on the Exchequer at the present time—all of us realise how heavy these are—we have not let financial difficulties hamper us in our efforts to solve our housing problems. Secondly, there was for a time a shortage of certain materials. I am glad to say that this difficulty has almost entirely vanished. I should like at this point to express appreciation of the action of the

brick-makers in rapidly increasing their production in order to meet our difficulties. Apart from local and purely temporary difficulties, we have no evidence that housing schemes are now being delayed through lack of materials. I am glad to be able to say that, because a different story was told a year ago when we were discussing the same problem. The third difficulty is a shortage of skilled labour. As to this, although the position has improved—and I hope it will continue to improve—I am afraid we must admit that progress is still being hampered. We are doing what we can, as I have already said, by the encouragement of alternative methods, but we want to see, side by side with this new development, an increase in the rate of production of houses by the normal methods. We can achieve this if we have the willing co-operation of the building industry.
I am grateful to the industry for the help they have already given by authorising an increase in the number of apprentices and by agreeing to the working of more overtime, but I should like to take this opportunity of appealing to the industry—and I feel sure the whole House will support this appeal—to consider earnestly what further steps can be taken to improve progress. I feel that with the known housing programmes before us—I do not need to give the figures again to show what a big programme can be before Scotland if she sets her mind to it—with gradually rising standards, and with the necessity for replacing ordinary wastage, together with developments in the industrial field and in the sphere of the social services generally, the building industry in Scotland can confidently look forward to many years of steady employment. That is my considered opinion. It need not, therefore, feel anxious about its future position. I am sure that I have the House with me in expressing the hope that the building industry will co-operate with us to the fullest extent in increasing the rate of production, and so assist us in our task of removing quickly the reflection on Scotland's fair name that our housing conditions imply. I commend this Bill to the House. I believe it will give a great stimulus to housebuilding in Scotland, and there is no side of my work which I should feel happier to stimulate than the improvement of housing conditions.


The Bill will also provide an answer, I think, to those who fear that under the stress of rearmament expenditure we intend to neglect the position of the people of Scotland.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, while welcoming any subsidy re-arrangements which may have the effect of encouraging local authorities in the building of houses for the working classes in Scotland, regrets that no provision is made for grants-in-aid to local authorities who find it desirable to purchase and reconstruct suitable house property in cases approved by the Department of Health, and further regrets that no grants-in-aid are provided for improving water supplies and drainage, without which any comprehensive drive for better housing in many areas in Scotland is virtually impossible.
We have been told that this Bill, as far as its finances are concerned, is practically an agreed Measure with the local authorities in Scotland, and to that extent hon. Members on these benches do not desire to criticise unduly an arrangement which the local authorities have felt it desirable to make with the Government. But the more the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland explained this bargain, and the more he threw light on the figures in connection with it, the more perplexed and surprised I became that the local authorities should have accepted the bargain. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the very difficult task which he had in explaining this very complex and very difficult subject. I suppose that we could discuss and dispute for hours the relative merits of particular forms of subsidies without arriving at any very definite conclusions; but I would like to put to the Under-Secretary of State, who I understand is to reply to the Debate, one or two questions concerning the finances of the Measure, to which I could not quite find an answer in the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman told us, quite properly, that the average subsidy which has hitherto been paid in Scotland amounts to about £14 a house, taking the unit grant subsidy under the 1930 Act and the per house subsidy under the 1935 Act.

Mr. Colville: No, I am afraid I did not make the position clear. The subsidy of

£14 is under the 1930 Act only. The subsidy is —10 when the two are taken together.

Mr. Johnston: For the purposes of my argument, precise figures do not matter. I take it that the average subsidy which has been paid has been about £10 or £11 per house. What the right hon. Gentleman has done as been to include in this subsidy the very favourable subsidies which have been received by local authorities under the 1930 Act, when they were picking and choosing the large families to rehouse on a unit grant basis. Naturally, when they started out under the 1930 Act, they picked the larger families in order to get a larger grant, but I understand that the larger families have now been dealt with, and that the local authorities find that the subsidies which they can get under the 1930 Act are now very much smaller than they were. Therefore, averages of the past, based on what happened in 1933 or 1934, do not assist us.
The question we have to face this afternoon is this: what subsidies can the local authorities, in November, 1938, get under existing legislation, and what subsidies will they get under this Bill? In 1938, they are able to get a subsidy with regard to overcrowding under the 1935 Act. That means a subsidy of £6 15s. per house. Under this Measure, they will get an increase from £6 15s., for a three-apartment dwelling, to £10 10s.—that is to say, an increase of £3 15s. per house. Let us consider what will be the position of the local authorities. There is to be an increase of £3 15s. for a three-apartment dwelling. Since 1935, however the cost of building in Scotland has risen, on the average, from £284 per house to £431. When the subsidy was fixed at 46 15s., it was fixed by the Government and the Treasury on the basis that £284 was the value of the house. Now we have to face an increased cost of £147 per house, and, subject to what the Under-Secretary may say later, I submit that the proposal in the Bill only meets the interest charges upon the increased cost of building since the subsidy was fixed under the 1935 Act, and that, therefore, as far as this part of the Bill is concerned, the local authorities have gained no increase whatever. I would like to see actuarial calculations showing wherein any benefits accrue to the local authorities.
That, however, is only the beginning of the story. We must now consider what this Bill does in making it obligatory upon local authorities to increase the rate contribution per house. To-day the rate contribution under the 1935 Act is £35s. per house, but under this Bill the local authorities are to pay £4 10s. for a three-apartment dwelling, £4 15s. for a four-apartment dwelling, and £5 for a five-apartment dwelling. For a three-apartment dwelling the local ratepayer is to pay an increase of £1 5s. per annum, so that, apart from the apparent increase in subsidy, which I submit only meets the increased cost of building charges—interest and redemption—the local authority has now to pay an increased charge of £1 5s. per annum for 40 years on a three-apartment dwelling. I believe there are some areas in which this increase, imposed upon the local ratepayers, will tend to slow down the rate of building. I believe that, owing to de-rating and other causes, there are areas in Scotland to-day where a penny rate brings in so little money that the urge on the part of local authorities will be towards slowing down, towards reducing rather than increasing their liability, because of this added burden on local rates.
There is still another point upon which we should like further information. If I understand the Bill aright, after 30th September, 1942, the local ratepayer will have to pay not only the £4 10s. subsidy—a jump from £3 5s.—but will have to pay half the subsidy per house which the Treasury is supposed to be paying. We were told to-day by the Secretary of State that in the large burghs the cost might go up to £15 per house for additional subsidy, in redevelopment cases. What does that mean? It means that the local authority will have to pay £7 10s. per house plus £5 17s. 6d. per house, or a total, in those cases, of £13 7s. 6d. per house of local subsidy. I cannot see the local authorities rushing forward to do that. I believe many local authorities will find it financially impossible to do it, and before this House parts with the Financial Resolution, and with the Committee stage of this Measure, the representatives of all parties would be well advised to get the facts clearly, as to what kind of bargain the Treasury has driven with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. I am not blaming his officials. I believe that they would struggle to get the best terms they could. But on my reading of this Measure there are certain aspects of this bargain which seem to make it a bad bargain for the local authorities, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that unless the bargain can still be revised in these respects the tendency will be for the present proposals to slow down and not to increase the rate of building. I am sure that some of the local authorities did not understand it. There are some of us here who have had the duty of piloting Housing Bills through this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) and I have had that duty and we have found great difficulty in understanding all the implications of this Measure. I discussed it with the representatives of the local authorities. At first they were quite happy about it, but when I pointed out the facts and figures which I have just indicated, they were staggered. I ask the Under-Secretary therefore to give us a straight answer to-night to this question: Is it possible under the provisions of this Bill, as far as redevelopment areas are concerned, that subsidies in large burghs may amount to £13 7s. 6d. per house after September, 1942?

Mr. Stephen: Surely we ought to have an answer to that question now, and not at the end of the Debate.

Mr. Johnston: I shall be only too happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to reply now.

Mr. Colville: I think it would be more satisfactory if the whole point were answered at the end of the Debate.

Mr. Buchanan: This is a point which we shall be debating for hours, and if it is not made clear now the whole of that. Debate may take place under a misconception.

Mr. Colville: I think hon. Members might allow the right hon. Gentleman to make his own speech. I think he is right, but it is equally apparent that this point was discussed with the local authorities, who were pleased to regard the arrangement which was made as satisfactory, and, after all, it is they who have to work it.

Mr. Johnston: I am delighted to have confirmation of my statement. At the same time I think that the right hon. Gentleman might, at any rate, have made clear to the House in his opening speech this most important fact, which I put forward with great hesitation. I could hardly believe, when I worked out my own calculations, that my figures were right, and I do not believe that you will get the large burghs in Scotland to proceed with the building of houses if it means a local subsidy of £13 7s. 6d. per annum per house.

Mr. Colville: That is four years from now.

Mr. Johnston: I think I have already made it clear that it is after September, 1942, but that, after all, is a comparatively small point.

Mr. Colville: No.

Mr. Johnston: I submit that it is.

Mr. Stephen: It means that there will be no houses for four years.

Mr. Johnston: If I may hazard a suggestion, I think some of the local authorities' representatives, if they understood what they were agreeing to here, must have calculated that 1942 was a long time from now, and that the present Government might by then have disappeared, and that new legislation would be brought in to amend what was apparently an injustice. I do not believe that the Secretary of State himself suggested this. "Treasury" is written all over this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to examine this gift horse in the mouth. I am doing so, and I do not see that this offer is entitled to the designation of generous, if the local authorities are being asked to provide a local subsidy of £13 7s. 6d. per annum.

Mr. Colville: I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but since hon. Members below the Gangway have raised this matter, it is better that I should make one point clear. The right hon. Gentleman has not made it quite plain that while, according to the arithmetic which he has worked out, it might be necessary in some cases for a local authority to pay the rate contribution which he has stated, that would not be for all houses. It would only be in a comparatively small case, that is, in the case of a redevelopment area. I thought

his concluding remarks rather suggested that the ultimate charge on local authorities for all houses would be increased to £13 and I must in fairness make it clear that this would apply only in the particular case which I have mentioned, and only after the first subsidy period.

Mr. Johnston: I have no desire to misrepresent the position, and I am perfectly certain that I did say, and indeed repeat, that it was in cases where local authorities got this "up to £15" subsidy, that the burden upon them in these redevelopment cases, after September, 1942, would be £13 7s. 6d. There is one point, however, which disturbs me even more. In the rural and fishing areas of Scotland, as a result of derating, a rate of a penny in the pound does not mean much, and it will be impossible to get the additional subsidies from local rates. As I read the Bill, there is no limit there to the extra subsidy which the Secretary of State may give. A limit of £15 is prescribed in the large burghs, but there is no limit in the rural areas.

Mr. Colville: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to remote areas?

Mr. Johnston: I am referring to the only distinction which appears to be drawn in the Bill. In the first part of the Bill there is a reference to £15 for large burghs. The rest is for areas other than large burghs which would include fishing and agricultural areas, and in those cases the Secretary of State has put no limit on the subsidy which he may give. Now in areas, not necessarily remote, which are fishing and agricultural areas, if you are going to give an extra subsidy of £15 or £20 per house from the Treasury you cannot get half of that subsidy back, or you cannot get the local authority to provide half of that subsidy as a contribution from the local rates, because it cannot be done. Therefore, I submit that as regards, say, Peterhead and Fraserburgh and any number of fishing villages and agricultural villages also, you will get no houses built under this Shylock agreement which the Treasury has imposed upon the Scottish Office. If I am wrong in that conclusion, I shall be delighted to have a correction made later.
There are two points concerning our Amendment. The first is, what is to be done about young couples? I am not talking about the reconditioning of property by local authorities in areas where


they have done little or nothing. I take a town like Rosyth where every effort was made whole-heartedly to rehouse the population. It is heartbreaking to have girls who have been born since 1919, who have never known what it was to live in anything but a miserable dwelling where there was a water closet inside the home, girls who are going to get married now and being compelled to start their married life, not in the kind of home in which they have been raised, with a lavatory inside, but, if you please, to go away to some place where there are four or five families to a single water closet. Some provision should be made whereby young couples could be facilitated in the obtaining of sanitary dwellings, modernised dwellings, in which they can live.
For that reason we on these benches are facing up to the fact that there are properties, some of them structurally good, where we would agree to reconditioning in the interests of these young couples, if it were done by the local authority, if the properties were owned by the local authority, but we would not agree, as apparently the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider, to a subsidy from public funds to privately owned property for reconditioning or anything else. We are prepared to assist local authorities in the acquisition of property, here a tenement, there a tenement, with the object of providing some accommodation whereby young couples could get decent, sanitary habitations. Otherwise I am afraid that for 15 or 20 years this problem will remain with us in Scotland, and the effects upon overcrowding had better be considered by the Government. If you are not going to provide decent houses for young couples, then they will stay with their parents, rather than go into tenements where they have to scramble four or five families to the single water closet. If they get married and stay with their parents, you will increase overcrowding and make things worse rather than better.
One word about water supplies, and I have finished. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and quite accurately, "This is a Housing Bill," and I think he was rather surprised when we on these benches said "Hear, hear." But how can you have a Housing Bill for the creation of new houses in areas where you have neither water supply nor drainage?

You simply cannot do it. I have areas in my constituency where the local authorities cannot build houses now—I will give the Under-Secretary of State the details if he wants them—because there is neither water nor drainage supply. And then along comes the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Lord Privy Seal, and brings in a report on evacuation in the possible event of war. What does he say? He says that from Edinburgh and the East he will evacuate 193,000 persons, a part of them to Stirlingshire. Where is he going to put them? There is neither water supply nor drainage there, and the cholera and the epidemics that you will start will surprise you. As a matter of fact, you are talking of evacuating 386,000 people from Glasgow and the West, and you are going to take them into areas where there are 8,000,000 gallons of water short. What are you going to do?

Mr. MacLaren: Open a distillery.

Mr. Johnston: I think, if I may say so with respect, that that is a second-rate kind of joke.

Mr. MacLaren: The whole thing is a joke.

Mr. Johnston: It is not all a joke. It will be art appalling tragedy if you take hundreds of thousands of our Scottish folk from homes where they can get water and drainage and rush them into areas where there is neither water nor drainage, or neither sufficient water nor sufficient drainage. For these reasons, among others, my hon. Friends and myself have tabled this Amendment to call the attention of the House to the fact that in a Housing Bill there is no provision made for assisting local authorities to provide the necessary water supply or drainage, without which they cannot build houses. I do not think it would be as costly as the Treasury imagine. Make a beginning. In my own area there are no fewer than six separate water supplies. Some of them are taking surface water out of puddles in periods of shortage now.
Why not bring together all these local authorities, not only in Stirlingshire but in Eastern Dumbartonshire as well, and why not bring in South Perthshire and, if necessary, part of Fifeshire? Why not get your actuaries there and see which authorities have paid off their burdens


and their debts and which have not, and share the burdens out? Regionalise your water supplies, and at any rate do something to preserve the people from the horrors that will undoubtedly come upon them in the event of mass evacuation should a war come. And there will be evacuation should a war come, whether the Government organise it or not. From your crowded industrial areas the people will bolt. They will bolt into the rural areas, and His Majesty's Government in this Measure are doing nothing whatever to prepare the way for them. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, of whose sympathy we are all aware—there is no personal reflection on him at all—should forthwith go to his colleague the Lord Privy Seal and table his demands on behalf of his own folk in Scotland. If he would table his demands, he would have a united Scotland behind him, and at any rate we on these benches would give him every support in our power.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I think every Member on both sides of the House agrees about the extent of the housing problem in Scotland. It was put very clearly by my right hon. Friend in his speech. We are all agreed also with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has just said about our wishing my right hon. Friend well in his struggles with the Treasury on this question. This is a matter on which we cannot afford to be niggardly, but I think the House will realise that a very definite step forward has been taken in this Bill and something very distinct has been done in the direction of giving housing an impetus in Scotland, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that account. There is one very attractive part of the Bill, and that is the idea of giving greater subsidies for building tenements in the centre of a town. There is scarcely anything more terrible to many families who have been accustomed to live in the centre of a town than to have to go out to far districts on the outside of the town, and I think the idea has in it the possibility of encouraging people to remain in the centre where they are accustomed to be, often close to where they are working. I think there is a widespread feeling—I know there is in Edinburg—that as many people as

possible should be kept in towards the centre of the city.
On that aspect of the Bill, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, but I regret that it has apparently been impossible to include in this Bill the reconditioning of houses. I think that problem falls into two parts. There is first of all that type of reconditioning, which can be done not only by the local authorities but by the private owners of houses, which can save in many cases houses of what one might call the medium sort becoming in course of time slums, and I am strongly of opinion that there is a great deal to be said—in fact, it was said in the Whitson report—about the benefit by giving grants towards reconditioning. This is a matter of great importance. I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State promised not to close his mind to it. I hope he will realise that there is a great deal of support, certainly from these Benches, for a reconditioning grant. I do not think I can do better than read a paragraph, with which I entirely agree, from the Whitson report. Paragraph 29 contains these words:
We have heard and seen evidence which satisfies us that a large proportion of fairly old houses can be reconditioned satisfactorily at reasonable cost, and we feel certain that money spent on reconditioning now will prevent these houses from becoming slums.
If there is one aspect of this housing problem that stands out more than any other it is its urgency, and I think the House should consider carefully what might not be done if a great many of these houses were reconditioned. It may be that it is not the ideal solution of the housing problem, but the housing problem in Scotland is an urgent one, and something must be done at once. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will continue to keep in mind that particular aspect of the problem. I will go further. I am by no means ashamed to say that I should like to help the private owner and to put him in the same position as the owner of the rural house. I do not see why the owner living in his house in town should not have the same facilities for improving his house as has the man in the country, and I think that both private owners and owners of town property to be reconditioned should be in exactly the same position as owners of houses that are in the country. I know a great deal of privately-owned property


in Edinburgh which is not sound, and could be vastly improved for the benefit of the occupants.

Mr. Westwood: The City of Edinburgh could adopt the Housing (Rural Workers) Act but they refuse to do so because they desire to keep their rates to the minimum, even at the expense of decent housing for the working class.

Mr. Erskine Hill: My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I was not referring to the grants given to local authorities, but to the grants given to private owners.

Mr. Westwood: That can be done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, provided the City of Edinburgh will adopt the Act.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I am delighted to hear that something of that sort can be done and I will use all the influence I have to see that it is adopted if the interruption is well founded. It does not, however, make any difference to my argument that a Statute should be passed giving powers to a private owner in the town which will put him in the same position as the private owner in the country. We are much indebted to the Secretary of State for producing this Bill. It will give a further impetus to housing and should help to put Scotland properly on the map in regard to this problem. This question will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time, and if my right hon. Friend will accept my suggestion with regard to the reconditioning of houses he will save a great deal of property from falling into slum conditions. I was rather surprised to read the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite because it seemed to represent a considerable change of front. I was always under the impression that his party were against grants for reconstruction, and I hope that by the time the next Debate takes place they will so far come round that they will accept the views I have expressed.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Foot: As the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) just said, no one is likely to under-estimate the importance of the Bill with which we are dealing. We all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State when he said that housing was supremely important in Scot-

land, and we all hope he was right when he prophesied that this Bill would give a marked stimulus to our housing programme. Those of us who have been in the House for some years look back over a long succession of Debates on Scottish housing, and it has always been agreed on all sides that housing in Scotland is a disgrace. I can remember the Debates that took place on the Bill of 1935, when the hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Solicitor-General for Scotland made a speech in the Committee upstairs pointing out that in the matter of overcrowding the worst district in England was better than the best district in Scotland. Only a few days ago the right. hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health made a speech in which he said that we were within measurable distance of solving the slum clearance and overcrowding problems in England, and he only wished he could say the same for Scotland.
We have to consider what contribution this Bill is likely to make towards the solution, and a reasonably speedy solution, of this problem, which we all agree is the greatest social problem in Scotland. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman made out his case when he was talking about the equalisation of the subsidies. I agree that equalisation is likely to be of advantage in the circumstances that now prevail in Scotland. I am not referring to the matter with which the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) spoke, namely, contributions of local authorities, but to the equalisation of subsidies between slum clearance and overcrowding. In the past the scales have been rather weighted in favour of slum clearance against overcrowding, which has meant that some of our local authorities have been a little chary about allocating houses which they are building to the overcrowding programme. That will be obviated by the equalisation of subsidies under this Bill.
I want to consider what progress is likely to be made when this Bill becomes an Act. We gather on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the first subsidy period is to end on 30th September, 1942, just under four years ahead. On page 5 figures are given of the houses likely to be built within that first subsidy period. The number likely to be built with normal contributions is 93,000, including 18,000 to be built by the Special Areas Housing Association. There are a


number of houses under other heads. The total comes to 102,000 houses. So the expectation of the Department is that we shall have that number built with State assistance in Scotland within a period of about four years. What are the dimensions of the problem? The right hon. Gentleman made a statement about it in his speech to-day, and he made a similar statement when he spoke in the House on the 9th of this month. On that occasion he said they estimated that in Scotland we required about 250,000 additional houses in order to replace slum dwellings, and to deal with the more serious overcrowding which still exists. That is to say, the figure of 250,000 does not represent anything like the whole of the need for new houses in Scotland. It does not cover the normal needs of the population, at any rate, in those parts where the population still tends to increase. What it comes to is that in four years, if this estimate be correct, we shall have completed only two-fifths of the number of houses needed for housing, slum clearance and the relief of overcrowding.

Mr. Colville: Excluding those built by private enterprise.

Mr. Foot: I agree, but we have frequently heard complaints that private enterprise does not operate so effectively in dealing with the cheaper houses in Scotland as it does in England.

Sir John Train: It does not operate at all in Scotland.

Mr. Foot: We all agree that we cannot expect any great assistance from private enterprise in Scotland in dealing with this problem. It is clear that there has been for some time past, as there is in this Bill, an obvious check in our system of housing subsidies in Scotland, because there is no subsidy now to deal with the ordinary needs of the population. I have here the last report issued by the city engineer of Dundee. Because it refers to this particular question, there are two passages from which I would like to quote:
No provision is being made for houses required by the increase in population. Although the population is increasing only slightly, the number of families is increasing much more rapidly, and the number of habitable houses to accommodate these families does not progress at an equal rate. Each year the number of families tends to increase

and there is no prospect of those families finding accommodation in new houses, particularly in view of the provisions of the overcrowding Act of 1935.
The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, laid upon all local authorities the duty of making provision for housing accommodation for the working classes, and this obligation has been continued under subsequent Housing Acts, although at present subsidies are available only under the Acts of 1930 and 1939. An effort should be made to secure the reintroduction of the normal subsidies under the 1924 Act, even if only on a modified scale, and a programme of building houses for new arrivals in the city and those about to be married should be approved.
I appreciate that we shall do something to solve this part of the problem when we get the overcrowding Act under way and when we move a certain number of households from houses which are overcrowded. It appears doubtful, however, whether we can solve the part of the problem created by the increasing number of new households simply in that way. I have raised this question before, and when I last raised it the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Minister of Health, replied with great force that much the most urgent matter was to get people out of the slums. I agree, but when he made that reply in March this year we were simply dealing with an Order which was extending housing subsidies under previous Acts. We were dealing with a temporary Measure. On this occasion, however, we are not, so far as one can see, dealing with a Measure designed only for the next few months. This is a Measure designed to run for several years, and it seems to me rather a bleak outlook that when we are dealing with permanent legislation of this kind no provision should be made for newly married couples and for the needs of an increasing population in the cities. Something ought to be said about that before the Debate ends.
I spoke of the number of houses that are needed and the number contemplated under this Bill. It will generally be agreed that even if the figures which are mentioned in the Memorandum are realised, we shall not be anything like near solving our housing problem. I listened with great interest to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave in introducing the Bill as to other methods of construction. He gave us the figures for wooden and concrete houses, which, I think, were 1,200 and 900 respectively already approved. We are glad to hear


of that, but I hope that these methods will he used on a much larger scale. I should like in this connection to thank the Under-Secretary for the interest which he has taken in wooden houses, particularly in reference to my constituency or Dundee, and to thank him for the assistance he has given us there. I hope that these alternative methods will be used on a much larger scale, because it is difficult to see any other way in which we shall be able to make up the enormous leeway which exists and will continue to exist even if the figures in the Memorandum are fully realised.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Edinburgh referred to reconditioning. That, again, is not a new question. We discussed it fully in the Debate on the 1935 Bill. The difference between hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to he that he is in favour of subsidies or assistance to enable private owners to recondition their property, while hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway want assistance to enable local authorities to do it. That seems to me to be an issue of minor importance. I have always thought that we could make a considerable impression on our housing problem in Scotland if grants for reconditioning were available. To me it does not appear to matter two straws whether it is done through the machinery of private enterprise or public enterprise, if we can make a contribution towards the solution of our housing problem by reconditioning and reconstruction. Although we in this part of the House think that the Bill effects some improvements, and although we are glad to see the equalisation of the subsidy, and the increase of the subsidy for overcrowding, nevertheless we do not think the Bill represents anything like a complete solution in itself, and I certainly hope that it is not the Government's last word in legislation on this subject.

5.46 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson: I should like to join in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State upon the production of this Bill. There are only three or four points to which I wish to draw attention. The first point is that in Clause 5 there is a stipulation which says that after 1942 the ratio is to go back to two to one. I agree with the junior

Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that about 100,000 houses may be built in the next four years, but our needs are in the nature of 250,000 houses, and therefore there seems no prospect of the problem being overtaken before 1942. I understand that this Clause has been put in with the object of urging-on the local authorities in the meantime, but I suggest that certain local authorities have the idea that this provision in the Bill may easily prejudice the success of the succeeding Bill in 1942. My second point, which has been emphasised by the last two speakers, is the importance of reconditioning. I agree with the junior Member for Dundee that it is not a question of private enterprise against public enterprise, but of action against drift.
The Whitson Report recommended that some form of reconditioning should be tried, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he had not closed his mind to that matter. It may be only a temporary measure, but we must have a change of policy in Scotland and a vast urge forward in face of the extraordinarily bad housing conditions, and I would recommend my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully the possibilities of reconditioning, which may well make a very substantial contribution to the solution of the problem. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) said, the middle-class houses of to-day may very well become the slums of five years hence. The middle-class people dwelling in those houses see the dwellers from the slums, with whom I have every sympathy, put into good surroundings while they are left with their higher rates and old houses and they feel that nothing is done for them. There is no money to modernise their property and in a few years time that property, whether privately-owned or not, will become slums and add to our difficulties.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the question of the improvement of the appearance and the condition of our towns. Though this is a point that may very well carry less appeal to the electorate, I suggest that if we could bring forward some reconditioning programme we might in addition save very many buildings in Scotland which are of great architectural interest. I do not know what our successors in 10, 20, or 30 years' time will think of the present generation,


who have allowed practically all the buildings of architectural interest in Scotland to be swept away. Buildings such as those in the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, where the facade is of value, could be kept and the inside of the buildings modernised at no very great additional expense so as to meet all possible requirements. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), I think, there are, in South Queensferry, two sixteenth century houses. They are the first two houses in that district on the list of the National Trust. The local road surveyor proposes to have them pulled down because it will cost a few pounds more to widen a road on one side than on the other. If we had some form of reconditioning we should be able to maintain buildings which are of special interest. I could quote 50 instances. There are 30 or 40 houses in the town of Airth—there is no question of road widening there—which are to be done away with because it would cost a few pounds more to modernise them than to build new ones. Excellent specimens of architecture, houses which are irreplaceable, are to be pulled down for the sake of a few pounds.
I was rather disappointed by my right hon. Friend's statement regarding housing associations. I could not understand why their work should be limited to experimental houses, but no doubt, much of the available labour is being used elsewhere. I would suggest that by means of these associations we might get private enterprise going as it is in England, where two or three houses are being built by private enterprise to one by municipal effort. The situation in Scotland is the other way round, which is the reason, I think, why the Scottish housing problem is as pressing as it is. I was a little disappointed to hear that apparently it is proposed that there shall be only one housing association. Reading the Bill one might feel that it applied to any housing association, that any collection of individuals, if approved and taking the necessary steps, could form a housing association, but I understood from my right hon. Friend that it is only the existing Special Areas Housing Association which is to be expanded. If that be so, it will give much less scope for the return of private enterprise to the building of working-class houses in Scotland.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the Secretary of State whether that is the case? Some of us do not understand that that is the position. We had better have the point cleared up.

Mr. Colville: Yes, the position of the housing association is as I explained it. It is certainly intended to expand only the Special Areas Housing Association, in order to enable it to build houses outside the Special Areas, with a view to demonstrating the possibilities of alternative methods of construction. My hon. Friend was right when he said that the normal building trade is fully engaged at the present time.

Sir D. Thomson: There is still my second point, that there is to be only one housing association in Scotland and not any number, all equally approved.

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will see that this Special Areas Housing Association will be assisted with very considerable national funds. The extension which is envisaged by the Bill will involve a considerable increase of money to be made available by the Exchequer. It is being done through the medium of this Special Areas Housing Association, the area of whose operation is being enlarged.

Sir D. Thomson: I am much obliged for that explanation. In conclusion, I would only say that the housing problem in Scotland is both shocking and acute. That is recognised on all sides of the House. I suggest that there must be not only a frontal attack upon it, but that it must be attacked simultaneously from all sides. My right hon. Friend has visited the slums in Scotland, as I have and as most of us have, and I hope that he will consider the question of reconditioning houses, which has been put forward from both sides of the House, in order to get the problem tackled from all sides. I thank him very much indeed for the introduction of the Bill, and I should like to read two lines from a resolution passed by the council of the city which I have the honour to represent:
The Council should take every opportunity of erecting as many houses as possible before the expiry of the period when the subsidies are again due for revision.
I think all hon. Members will hope that every town council in Scotland will take the same view as the council of that city.

5.55 P.m.

Mr. Welsh: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his very clear exposition


of his Bill, and I want to accept his offer of assistance in getting houses built. He said that the housing question in Scotland was of supreme importance and that he would assist all local authorities and housing associations in every way he could. I do not want to go over the ground which has already been covered by former speakers, and I should not have risen had it not been that I wished to put the point of view of the Special Areas Housing Association, and some of their difficulties, because there have been very considerable difficulties. It is not always recognised that the Association is a new venture, and that it had to build by methods alternative to those which have hitherto been in operation in Scotland. That was a very important point to begin with. Various alternative methods were considered and the two that appealed to us were poured concrete and timber. We decided to try those two methods, in order to see whether we could assist local authorities in providing the houses which are so necessary.
There are not a great number of people who have specialised in the poured concrete process, and those who had had already been largely bought up by contractors undertaking that kind of work. Then, as far as possible we were to employ direct labour. We got a couple of good men to supervise the work, but the bulk of the labour came from the local Employment Exchanges. The work has provided for many men a sort of new trade, and already they feel themselves quite up in that work. They comprise ex-miners, ex-railwaymen, ex-farm hands—ex everything else. Although they have been only a comparatively short time at the work we have had high tributes to their adaptability and the way they have undertaken the duties from the two experts whom we engaged to superintend the work. We could go into the Special Areas only if the local authorities had building sites to offer us, and out of 22 which indicated willingness to accept our co-operation only five had land to offer, four being county authorities and one a burgh. That was where the difficulties began.
Apart from the material and the training of the men, and apart from the fact that everything was new, our real difficulties began when we came to try erecting

houses. We decided to try some in timber and two exhibition houses were speedily put up. They are very fine-looking houses and I believe that the people inhabiting them are highly satisfied with their habitation, but they were rushed up for a special purpose. Immediately it was known that the Special Areas Housing Association were beginning to build in timber, timber began to soar in price. The demonstration of those two houses encouraged local authorities to launch out in timber housing schemes, with the result that the price always mounted higher, until the Special Areas Housing Association have now decided that they cannot continue to build in timber because timber houses are now dearer than brick houses. That is our first experience with timber.
In the matter of direct labour we have given new hope to the men whom we have taken on. The new form of construction, poured concrete, is bound to be dear, but if we could get large schemes of anything from 500 to 2,000 houses they could be infinitely cheaper. The method of shuttering is one of the things we have improved as compared with previous methods. The old form of wooden shuttering was wasteful and expensive and we decided to specialise in steel shuttering, patented by one of the men who are working for the Association. Steel shuttering was much dearer to begin with, but you can use it over and over again, once your types are approved and, in the end, with a large number of houses to be built, it will become very much cheaper and will cheapen the houses. Steel was difficult to get because it was wanted for munitions, but we have now obtained a supply and are going on with the houses. I had a letter this morning relating to a comparatively small scheme of about 100 houses which are being rushed up at the rate of two blocks a week, with labour from the Employment Exchange and under the supervision of those individuals.
One can readily understand that we could get along very much more quickly if we could have a scheme of from 500 to 1,000 houses and that they would be very much cheaper to do. Contractors are now beginning to look round our scheme, and we shall be able to get contractors to take up other schemes upon which we have decided. Indeed, we have some already. We found a difficulty here


at first in that the contractors were not too ready to come in because they had not done much of that kind of work, and together with the difficulty of the cost of materials this made our initial difficulties very considerable. I would like the Scottish Health Department to help us in this matter because it is sometimes discouraging and disheartening. We feel as though nobody minded. It was easy to pass the legislation but it did not seem easy to get the difficulties out of the way.
Our chief difficulty was in regard to land. It was the most important difficulty of the lot. I make the statement, and I am sure that every member of a housing association will agree with it, that had land been accessible in the last 10 months from the time we begun to operate we could already have had hundreds of thousands of houses, putting the figure at the lowest. All sorts of difficulties arise as soon as you decide to build. The association has entered into a contract with a contractor for 2,000 houses, to be built by poured concrete, and all within easy reach of a place to which he can move his plant. After some seven months negotiating we have, up to now, been able to get only part of the land, enabling us to erect 200 houses. When it is known that the houses are for the Housing Association and not for the local authority, up goes the price and you begin to negotiate. Again and again we have suggested submitting the matter to arbitration, but that is not looked upon favourably by the landowners. On several occasions we have asked the local authorities, when we have met these difficulties, to put into operation a compulsory purchase order, but for some reason we have not been able to get a local authority to do so.
The new form of housing association will meet with the same difficulties and I believe that in some cases the difficulties will be accentuated when you go out into the wider rural areas where landowners are hungrier than they are in the industrial areas. We have been negotiating for from six months to nine months for sites available in different parts of the Special Areas, and we have always met with the difficulty of price. There is a difference of as much as £100 per acre between what we are offering because we consider it to be a fair price, and the price that the landowner asks. We cannot get the local authorities to apply compulsory

purchase powers and one—only one—local authority gave us a reason. It said that it would not be fair for a local authority to put that power into operation against a ratepayer in the district—forgetting that all the other ratepayers are suffering from the lack of houses.
There is a crying need for houses in the Special Areas; nobody needs to enlarge upon that. Our difficulty at the present time is that we cannot be sure of getting our land at a fair price. The new central organisation that is to be set up to assist local authorities to build houses should either give power to housing associations to demand a fair price before land is bought or should insist upon a compulsory purchase order being put into operation for the purpose. If we had been able to overcome that difficulty I am satisfied that the 18,000 houses that have been visualised and for which we have budgeted could have been almost doubled. There is no reason why we should have in Scotland the kind of houses that we have at the present time. We have plenty of material, but as soon as we begin to build a large number of houses the same thing takes place as we found in regard to timber. I ask that something should be done to enable us to get houses. We could do so, because we have the materials, the men, the labour, the skill and the will to build houses. The only obstacles are in regard to the land and the prices of materials.
One thing struck me in all housing negotiations. We were asked at the beginning to get on with house building, and we were all keen to do it. I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to Sir David Allan Hay. Once the work that he has done in that association becomes known he will be very highly appreciated. He is a driver, a skilled business man and a splendid negotiator. When you meet difficulties week after week and are trying to get over them you come to the conclusion that you are not a member of a housing association but of a nonintervention committee. If housing associations were given some power along the lines I have suggested to get quicker access to the land, so that men and material could be brought to it, we could produce houses for the Scottish people in co-operation with the local authorities. Local authorities have the same difficulties, except they have the power to put


compulsory purchase into operation and we have not. Otherwise, the community is going to be held to ransom. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should devote his mind to the subject along the lines I have indicated, and Scotland will then very soon get houses.

Mr. Colville: I thank the hon. Member for a most helpful speech. Perhaps he will tell me whether much of the difficulty has been occasioned by getting sites free from mineral disturbance?

Mr. Welsh: No, we have not had a very great difficulty in that regard. As a matter of fact, there is one case quite out of the coal-mine area where 750 houses are required urgently at the present time in a fairly considerable sized town. The site that we chose is very suitable but it is owned by two brothers. One is willing to sell; the other says that although he is willing to consider the matter the land has a sentimental value. We offered what we considered a fair price, £8,000, but he said "No," and he would not sell. I cannot recall the price per acre but the land had to accommodate 750 houses. He said that the land had a sentimental value but he would sell it if we gave him £14,000. That is quite impossible.
Another difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman can help us is that after the land has been taken, everything is settled and we are ready to begin operations—we have passed our plans, our lay-out plans and the types and that kind of thing, in which the Department of Health give us every assistance; and we have had our plans passed by them and by the local authorities—we have to get the sanction of the owner from whom we have obtained that land. He must approve the lay-out plan and the type of house. There is one case in Ayrshire at the moment. All those negotiations have gone through. We have received the approval of the Department of Health and of the local authorities, but the man to whom we had to pay an increased price for the land in order to get a site for the scheme refused to accept the plan when we put it before him. The lay-out plan and the type of building were not satisfactory to him.
In this Association we have a number of young architects, young men with good ideas, and they are putting punch and drive into the work. They are bringing

something new into the houses. We want to vary the plans, not only in elevation but in coloration, but all that kind of thing has to be submitted to the whim of the man who has bled the community in order to get his price. In this case the architect has had to take back the whole of that plan and to reconsider even the type of building. He prepared new plans and put them before us, and we had to go through all that rigmarole before final acceptance could be obtained for this particular plan. All this adds to the cost and adds to the delay in supplying houses. I am satisfied that, if the right hon. Gentleman and his staff will give us assistance along the lines I have indicated, the people of Scotland will very soon have reason to be proud of the name of Colville at the Scottish Office.

6.15 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: In common with the whole House, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh). The more I listen to or take part in debates on housing, the more I realise the enormous number of difficulties. One needs to be an optimist if one still continues to hope for good housing in Scotland. The hon. Member has told us that the association with which he is connected finds that the men are ready—skilled men—that the building material is ready, but that the land cannot be obtained. In other parts of Scotland which I know rather better, the land is there, but we are told that there are no skilled men and no materials. The more one studies this problem, the more one feels that with really good organisation we can solve it.
As hon. Members have already said, there is no need to stress the appalling housing conditions in Scotland. We all know the immensity and urgency of the problem. What makes me despondent over and over again in these housing debates is the fact that, while we are considering the number of houses that can be built perhaps in the next five years or so, one cannot help thinking of the people who are living now in conditions in which they ought not to be left during this coming winter. In my view, greater efforts should be made to take some of those people out of their present appalling conditions, dealing with the worst cases first, which is not always being done. In my constituency there is one case, and it


is not the only one, in which, in a room 12 feet by 10 feet, a family is living consisting of the father, the mother and 10 children, the eldest above school age. Are these people to wait for four, five, six, seven, eight or nine years? The problem as it is envisaged in Dundee is to take about 30 years, and I put it down, at its lowest, at 25 or 20 years. The same sort of thing is happening all over the country, and many Members of the House have the feeling that the question of organisation is not being tackled at all, and that it ought to be tackled.
It is not merely a question of money. I am not going into the details of the particular subsidies that we have been discussing this afternoon. I want to go beyond that, because I am convinced that what we have to do, as the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) said, is not only to make a frontal attack, not only to deal with the matter through the local authorities and one housing association, but to attack it from all sorts of angles. The Secretary of State told us the reasons why the central housing association is only to be allowed to build alternative types of construction, saying that there is a shortage of skilled men and of certain materials. But when one goes about the country and sees the amount of building that is being done of a kind which I do not consider to be as necessary as putting people into decent houses, one begins to think that there ought to be better organisation there. I am informed that in Dundee, for instance—hon. Members must forgive me for mentioning so often the place with regard to which I am best able to get to know the facts—at the present moment the corporation are only employing 14 per cent. of the building labour there on house building.
I believe that we have centralised or canalised our efforts in house building too much. I am not going to say that the local authorities have not done their best, but they have been landed with tremendous difficulties. They have been asked to tackle things that they have not always been able to tackle. In Dundee we want at least 12,000 houses now. The need is desperate. I could quote case after case, but we all know them. In the year 1937, there were completed in Dundee 376 houses. It is said that we might be able to build up to 500 or 600 per year. I

know that in 1936 the present Lord Provost brought out a scheme for building 1,000 per year, but we are told that 500 or 600 could be built, and yet in 1937 only 376 were completed. Great efforts are being made. I am told that in the city engineer's office we have now a staff of 23 architects and surveyors, in addition to typists, but the result of all that work in 1937 was 376 houses completed when we want 12,000 immediately. It is not because of the need of extra money that they cannot double or treble their efforts.
Are we to wait for 20 or 25 years? Is the only thing that is offered at the present moment this one central housing association? As I have already said I believe that we are centralising and canalising our efforts too much. If people could come forward and get together and form housing associations and try to get this job done, such associations could be approved by the Department of Health. Why should they not have an opportunity of trying? They may be able to bring forward schemes of alternative construction, or to find more building labour, or to get more materials. I am convinced that, unless we can look upon this matter from a far wider point of view, we shall not be able to deal with it as it urgently needs to be dealt with. If the problem were a much smaller one, if in Dundee we wanted, say 5,000 houses and were told that 3,000 could be got in five years, that would not be quite as bad; it might be solved with the help of alternative schemes. But we need 12,000 houses now, and the dilapidated houses which are not yet scheduled as slums, but which ought to be scheduled, are wearing out. Then there is the increase in population; there are the people who are living in rooms; there are those who want to get married and cannot get houses. That makes the problem a far bigger one.
I am glad that we have got this further step forward, and that we have in Scotland this extra subsidy. That is a step in the right direction, but I believe that the problem is not simply one of money; it is a problem of organisation. Let us bring in private enterprise, let us bring in building societies, let us bring in the local authorities as far as ever we can. Our motto should be "Let 'em all come." I would have every type of houses, and I


would also have every type of reconditioning. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that reconditioning should only be done by local authorities, while, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) put forward the point of view of private enterprise. Is not the problem so vast, however, that everything ought to be brought in? I am convinced that only by tackling the problem in that way shall we succeed. Those of us who have spoken on this subject over and over again, and who go into these appalling houses—damp, unhealthy dens—in which people are living and children are dying to-day, are getting desperate. I have already explained how 12 human beings are living in a room 10 feet by 12 feet. There are also one-roomed houses in which large families are living, and one or two members of the family are suffering from tuberculosis. Is it surprising that we cannot stamp out tuberculosis under such conditions?
The situation is desperate, and needs desperate remedies. Niggling little remedies, and centralisation and canalisation of our efforts, are not going to succeed, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the matter cannot be looked at from a bigger point of view. Let us help the local authorities, let us help private enterprise, let us help, not only building by normal methods, but timber, concrete, "Herakleth," or any scheme of construction which the Department thinks is right for dwelling houses to-day. I should like also to see some of the existing houses reconditioned, and perhaps some of the bigger houses cut up into smaller houses. It might be said that the houses would not be quite so nice as many of our modern houses with gardens, but I would ask any hon. Member to ask himself, what would a decent, dry, properly ventilated and sufficiently large house of that sort mean to those unfortunate men and women who are trying to bring up their children in conditions that ought no longer to be tolerated in any civilised country?

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I think that everyone who has spoken on this Bill is agreed as to its importance, but I find some difficulty about the Amendment which has been put down by hon. Members on the Labour benches. I desire first to discuss

the merits of the Bill, as apart from reconditioning or any other question. If the House is going into reconditioning, I trust that it will do so in a proper manner, and discuss the question on its merits. In the meantime, we are not discussing a Bill for the reconditioning of houses, but a Bill for the granting of certain subsidies to local authorities. As regards reconditioning, I remember that the Government set up the Whitson Committee, who by a majority decided in favour of recommending the reconditioning of property, although I would remind the House that the Labour Member of the Committee dissented from that finding and opposed the reconditioning of private property. His reason was that almost all the private property that was likely to be dealt with was built at least 40 years ago, and that, consequently, whether it was bought by private enterprise or by public enterprise, it was so far out of date that its purchase by anyone was a totally unbusinesslike proposition. Therefore, as regards the purchasing of property by local authorities, I cannot follow hon. Members above the Gangway in their Amendment.
There is one thing that I fear about reconditioning. I know that there is pressure in its favour from working-class organisations, because I found, when the Bill was previously before us, that I had letters from friendly societies, largely composed of working people who were interested in house property, to the effect that every new house that was built to some extent depreciated their own property, and accordingly they were anxious to sell their property. I fear that some such attempt may be made now. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) that, if you go into reconditioning, the question whether it is done by public enterprise or by private enterprise will not matter very much, but the thing that will matter is that you will be reconditioning private property which has been bought with public money, and that is a thing which in my view will not aid the building of houses at all. I think that, if local authorities do this, it will be an excuse for them not to build houses, and they will go into reconditioning rather than building new houses. I am not at all keen on reconditioning.
The proposal with regard to water supply is quite good, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill is almost


entirely a question of machinery, apart from the new scheme, the powers of local authorities, and the national housing trust with power to build houses. What we are discussing is, with that exception, a machinery Bill for the purpose of aiding local authorities to build houses in Scotland. Leave aside this proposition of a national housing trust; what does this Bill do to improve the building of houses? What does it do to increase the number of houses? I say frankly that the Bill does nothing to make houses more numerous. It certainly grants subsidies; but they were granted under the 1930 and 1935 Acts. It is true that here and there there has been an increase—offset, as some think, by an increase in building costs—but, be that as it may, this is merely a continuation of the same machinery which so far has failed to build houses in Scotland. I have almost given up hope of seeing houses built in Scotland.
When one goes into the question and makes inquiries the Government throw the responsibility on the local authorities; the local authorities throw it back on the Government or on somebody else. At the end, all one succeeds in doing is in finding out a hundred reasons why houses should not be built; one never finds out why they should. One can argue with the local authorities and the Government about the terrible conditions, but nothing is done. Take the figures for Glasgow. The hon. Member for Dundee has no need to apologise for talking about Dundee: she represents that city, with all its bad conditions; and I make no apology for talking about Glasgow. There, there are, roughly speaking, 250,000 or 260,000 working-class houses. Half of them are of two apartments or less. Imagine half of the population of Glasgow to-day, with all the new houses you have built, housed in dwellings of two apartments or one apartment. The average wastage in Glasgow every year is 2,500 houses on the most conservative estimate. Roughly speaking, for one reason or another, 2,500 houses go to waste every year.

Mr. Colville: What I said was that 1,400 were demolished each year, and a further 500 to 1000 became unfit.

Mr. Buchanan: There are 2,500 going out each year. What are the facts? Glasgow has built 7,000 houses in three

years, and the wastage was 7,500. In other words, you are not even meeting the wastage, let alone solving the housing problem. Here you are to-day, with a population housed like that, and you are not even meeting the wastage. There is only one reason that I have heard in this House, and that is shortage of building labour. I have looked at every reason given. The Secretary for Scotland says, "We have all the land we need." He tells me, "We have no scarcity of housing sites." He says, "We have all the labour in connection with the draughtsmanship and the preparatory work of housing." But he comes down and says that labour is scarce. He now proposes to face up to that, in a limited way, by a scheme of alternative dwellings. But I have never been too sure of this scarcity of labour. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Labour a question, and from the answer I find that there is to-day in Scotland unemployed building labour. I find, for instance, that in Glasgow—I will leave out the carpenters and other trades in which labour is not supposed to be scarce, and take the two trades in which labour is supposed to be scarce—there are 39 idle bricklayers and 31 idle masons. In the whole of Scotland there are 77 idle bricklayers and 319 idle masons. These are the figures given to me yesterday by the Minister of Labour.
Although it is said that there is no labour available, I am told, when we are in the midst of discussing this Bill, that there is actually a surplus of labour now. When I go to the Glasgow Corporation they tell me they can build no more, and when I come here I am told, "We cannot do any more in orthodox building." When I meet the building unions they say, "What is all this nonsense about shortage of labour? We can get the labour now if there is work for it." At the end of it all we find the people still living in slums, and I see no prospect of getting them out. The great mass of the people in Glasgow are imprisoned in slums for a generation. Cannot the Secretary for Scotland consider going further still. I am convinced that until you tackle the problem of housing in the same way as problems were tackled during the War you will never solve it. During the War you did not stand about discussing building this and that here and there; you built the things, and did so with great rapidity.
If you can get into your minds that the housing problems in our cities to-day are as grave as the problems that arise in a war you will begin solving them. The Government should tackle it, not in petty local areas but in Scotland as a whole. If I were tackling the problem I would set up a complete State Department of Housing in Scotland. I may be told that the local authorities would resent it—that I would he interfering with the powers of local government. For 16 years I have been here, and we have tried every Bill, and at the end of that time we are less near solving the problem than we were at the beginning. You have tried the local authorities: you have given them subsidies, you have negotiated with them; and at the end, in my native city you are not even meeting the wastage, let alone solving the problem. The problem ought to be solved by a national housing board, by nationalisation. Start to manufacture your own materials, to engage your own labour to start your own men. Take your own steps, and drive on. That is the only way that I can see of dealing with this matter.
It is all very well for us to come here and talk about some kind of reconditioning. I heard an hon. Member talk about preserving some of the fine old sites. I know the fine old sites of Glasgow, and I do not want any of them preserved. I know some of them are supposed to have sonic kind of value, but the most valuable thing that could be done for Glasgow is for them to be taken away. The position now is a tragedy. At the end of all our efforts we are back here discussing what we discussed 10 or 12 years ago: people living in slums, tuberculosis, and how it has not been eased. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has quite properly spoken about the plight of the young married couples. Theirs is a terrible plight; but one of the things we have to guard against in these discussions is playing off the young married couple against the person with a big family, and that kind of thing. What we must do is to meet the needs of all, and not to think of dealing with one section first.
I could give the House harrowing stories of the conditions in my division. The housing problem is actually getting worse in Glasgow. When I entered this House we were faced with what some

people called the farmed-out houses in Glasgow. In brief, the farmed-out house was a block of tenements; and each house had a plate in front of it, called a ticket, denoting how many adults and how many juveniles could live in it. The sanitary inspector had the right to enter that house at any time of the day or night. It was different from other houses, to enter which a warrant had to be obtained. In the old days we looked upon those houses as being, in the words of a former Member of the Labour party in this House, dens of vice and iniquity, where people lived in the most hellish fashion. I question whether there are many of them left now, but what is happening now is this. There used to be big houses, with seven, six and five rooms. Now a man takes the lease of five or six of these big houses, and proceeds to let the rooms to unfortunate people who cannot get houses elsewhere. There was a case in the Glasgow courts the other day, arising out of a fight between the families living in one of these houses. The magistrate, a decent, kindly man, did not know what to do. He found living in a house of five apartments, nearly 50 people.
The old slums were hellish, but we have worse things in Glasgow than the slums. At least, the slum dweller can turn a key in his own door; it is his. But in this type of house a person has no privacy. He has no lavatory. They talk about a lavatory on the stairs. Here, there are five families using the one lavatory in the one house. The man, the woman, the daughters and the sons walk out of the common door and enter the common place. Someone came to me and said, "I am paying 12s. a week for a room." I was also told that people were having to pay 10s. or 12s. for a big room, and that the charges for rooms varied down to the kitchen, which might be only 8s. Some of the people were actually paying 14s. and 15s. a week. I did not believe these folk when they told me, so I went to the Unemployment Assistance Board upon whom they were chargeable. I said that I did not believe that it was possible for people to be called upon to pay 15s. for one or two miserable rooms, but the Unemployment Assistance Board found that the statements of these people were correct. There were no proper sanitary conveniences in these places, and the people were living under the most hellish conditions.
When the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood), Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and I first came into this House we used to speak about housing conditions and the slums. One would have thought that at the end of 16 years the slum would have gone and that something decent would have taken its place and that there would have been a new conception of housing. At the end of 16 years, I look at my native city and at my own division and I find that, instead of the housing problem being solved, we are drifting into worse housing conditions than I ever knew before. That is the picture. That is how the people have to live.
This Bill is merely another piece of machinery. The right hon. Gentleman could have continued the other Measures and have made his small allowances with regard to the areas which are thickly populated. He can tell us all about remote areas, but in the main this Bill means a continuation of things as before. There is no change and no new machinery. It is true that the Housing Association is to build these extra houses, but apart from that there is nothing new with which to face the problem. Conditions will remain much the same unless the building of houses is tackled properly. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh), in which he dealt with interesting facts with regard to that division, and it is true, as he says, that the problem of land plays an important part in the question of housing. The Secretary of State for Scotland has had a great opportunity, but he has produced a Bill very much on the lines of the Measures introduced by his predecessors. There is no imagination in the Bill, and very little drive in order to solve the problem.

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member spoke earlier on the real crux of the situation, the labour question, and I hope to hear from him some practical suggestion.

Mr. Buchanan: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that the only way is to start a nationalised building system in Scotland. I can see no other way out of it. I have been here for 16 years during which time you have tried the local authorities, private enterprise, and subsidy methods, and you are now driven

back to the only solution, that of a national system of building houses. It is the only way.

Mr. Colville: That does not attract the labour.

Mr. Buchanan: The reason why you have never attracted building trade labour is that there has been no guaranteed continuity of employment. The payment for wet time does not solve the problem. The payment for wet time means practically that a man is dismissed. The Glasgow Town Council have no difficulty in getting building trade labour. Every time the Glasgow Corporation desire to employ building trade labour they are able to obtain it because they guarantee continuity of employment. If building trade labour was given the same guarantee of continuous employment as obtains in the Civil Service, you would immediately get all the labour you needed. Even with the attraction offered in respect of employment hi certain munition factories, engineers will not leave corporation employment, though perhaps their wages may be lower than those offered on munition work. Their employment with the corporation is usually superannuated; and they are assured of constant employment. If you start a building scheme and guarantee 52 weeks' wages to the men employed and the same conditions as are applicable in Government service, you will get all the building workers you need. People might even engage in wire-pulling in order to get in. That is what would happen. Workers will not show enthusiasm for taking part in housing schemes if they feel that they may be in work to-day and out again to-morrow. They prefer to take part in the building of cinemas where they may work overtime and obtain more money, while the builder of the cinema says, "Who is going to build houses when he can get bigger contracts?"
I have put my alternative before the right hon. Gentleman, and time will tell whether his alternative or mine is the correct one. The important thing to remember is that behind all this bantering is the fact that human life is at stake, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman really to tackle the problem. I do not believe that reconditioning will really touch the fringe of the problem, and even if it did I am not a lover of re-conditioning in


Scotland. The bulk of the houses have already been bought over and over again without local authorities purchasing and re-conditioning them. I do not want to see these houses being purchased; I want to see a drive made in the erection of new houses. I want to see the same outlook it regard to houses as that possessed by the middle and upper classes in regard to motor cars. A person usually exchanges his motor car at the end of three years for a new one, so much being allowed for the old one. We should not deal with housing from the point of view of finality. Unless the Secretary of State for Scotland settles the problem in a big fashion he will end very much like his predecessors, having done next to nothing, and human beings who have to live in these places will be in the same position as before.

6.55 p m.

Sir J. Train: I have listened very attentively throughout this Debate to various speakers. All the subjects which have arisen during the last 17 or 18 years when Housing Bills have come before this House have been discussed. We have discussed re-conditioning, and have been told of the horrible conditions in which people live in Dundee and in Glasgow. We all sympathise with these poor people. We are told definitely to-day by people who know and have seen them that they are no better off than they were before the Government started housing schemes at all. I have seen many Housing Bills introduced in this House by various Secretaries of State for Scotland, who started with great hopes that they were going to do something great in the way of rehousing the people and providing them with good housing conditions. It is horrible to he told to-day that things are worse now than when we started. I fear that the introduction of such a Bill as this may raise false hopes in the minds of the people who require houses.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was actually going to criticise the terms of the Bill. He told us at the beginning of his speech that he was not going to touch upon reconditioning at all, but we have heard all about reconditioning from him, a very good description of it. We all remember the Whitson Committee being set up. I was a member of it and one of those who

signed the report which recommended reconditioning. There again, I believe that false hopes were raised in the minds of certain people. We believed that there were houses which, if a little money were spent upon them, could be made a great deal better, even if we provided at least modern sanitary requirements. In the course of our meetings we were asked to go to Glasgow to visit a large building that had been reconditioned right opposite the works of the then Secretary of State. They had taken over houses of six or seven apartments such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals. They were out of condition as far as sanitary arrangements were concerned. They were modernised and the size of the dwellings reduced to three or four apartments. They were let at rents which the working class could conveniently pay. We were greatly impressed by the improvement that had been made. We learned that some of the men living there were employed at Collin's works and that they were able to come home at breakfast time and at dinner time, besides being able to work an hour or two's overtime quite conveniently, which would not have been the case if they had lived in the country in some of the council houses.

Mr. Maxton: Why did they want to go home at all? They could have slept in the works too.

Sir J. Train: Well, that was their choice. We visited other houses that could have been reconstructed, but when the committee recommended a grant for the reconditioning, anybody who was reconditioning stopped. One can see the result of this recommendation of the Whitson Committee on the Scottish Office. When the Bill to deal with overcrowding was produced reconditioning was cut out except in one particular, and that was that local authorities could buy houses and recondition them. Therefore the people in these houses which could be repaired and brought up to modern requirements are still in the same position. There has been nothing done. I am a believer in reconditioning provided it is done very carefully and the structure is sound and it has a sound roof. This has been advocated for many years by people who have studied the problem. I should like the Government to bring in a comprehensive measure which will embrace


reconditioning by whomsoever done—local authority or private enterprise—under proper regulations. Reconditioning is only a help towards giving people decent houses to live in for the next 25 or 30 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not make more accommodation."] It does not make more accommodation, but it brings the houses up to modem requirements of public health and prevents them being a danger to themselves and to those who surround them.
There is another problem that ought to be considered by the Scottish Office when these Bills are brought forward, and that is the rating system. People ask me, knowing that I am in the building trade, why England has solved the housing problem and Scotland has not got any further forward, but, as we have heard to-night, is further back. It is because of our rating system being different from that of England. That is one of the main items that should be considered in any housing legislation, apart from water supply and drainage. These two are right in the forefront of housing and, until the Government tackle these two problems, the housing question will be with us.

Mr. Westwood: Will the hon. Gentleman join with those on this side, who have put down questions asking for an inquiry into the rating system and have been refused the setting up of a Commission, in bringing pressure to bear on his own side to give effect to his desire?

Sir J. Train: I have joined in deputations to the Prime Minister on the same subject and I also have been turned down, so I do not think there would be any more hope if I came in again. The hon. Member for Gorbals gave a very interesting history of the association that had been set up for the purpose of building demonstration housing schemes outside and inside the Special Areas. I was very interested to hear his experience as a member of that association. I know that most of the men are very earnest and very anxious to get on with the job, just as we were on the county councils and local authorities when the Addison scheme came out. I was a member of a housing committee and I had all these difficulties with landed proprietors, with local authorities and with the Scottish Board of Health that the association is having now.
What amuses me in the first Clause of the Bill is that there is to be payment of contribution to an approved housing association for the purpose of building demonstration housing schemes. We are told by the Secretary of State that these are wooden and poured concrete houses. That is nothing new in the building trade. I can take you to houses that were built of poured concrete 40 years ago, and there have been many wooden sheds built. It may be that better sheds are being built nowadays than in the past but, if you have a wooden shed in your garden for shelter from the rain, after a winter or two you are constantly repairing it. Is this contribution to be given for experimenting with wooden and poured concrete houses? There are thousands of buildings all over Great Britain built of poured concrete, and very prominent buildings too. Glasgow University has been extended with poured concrete. They are paying for it themselves. There is nothing new in any of these things.
Many Members were very pleased to see the Secretary of State corning forward with an effort to do something for housing, but let us analyse it. What is behind the effort? Is it raising false hopes in the minds of the people or is it really a Measure that is worth anything at all to produce more houses? I support the Measure—it is a step forward—but it is not the step that I should like to see. I should like to see a large, comprehensive Measure taking in one or two of these things that are vital to the rehousing of the people. A Measure of that kind would do something, I am sure, but I am doubtful whether this will do more than raise false hopes.

7.9 P.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I have no very high hopes of this Measure. It may be that the Secretary of State has been able to persuade local authorities that it is going to be of considerable advantage to them, but I am afraid, after the examination that has been made of it to-day, they will not be so confident that they have got a Measure of very great importance. I was hoping that in this new Bill something really substantial would be done to solve the housing problem. When we have the Secretary of State calmly telling us that we require 250,000 houses, we require something more than is in this Measure. A few minutes ago the right


hon. Gentleman seemed to be anxious to know whether, in the experience of the committee that is building houses in the Special Areas, they had any trouble with regard to undermining. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh) was able to assure him that the association had had no difficulty in that regard.
I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that all districts are not so fortunate as the housing associations in the West of Scotland. It may be that they have not selected sites where mining is actually going on, but the Secretary of State knows full well that many of our local authorities in the mining areas are experiencing very great difficulty in getting suitable housing sites. The Cowdenbeath Town Council is at this moment having the greatest difficulty in getting sites, just because of undermining. I should like the Under-Secretary to let us know if this additional grant over and above what is mentioned in this scale will be available to local authorities who have to buy minerals, as the Cowdenbeath Town Council have had to do in order to ensure that it was going to have a safe site for building. In at least one instance it has had to spend thousands of pounds in purchasing minerals in order to secure the housing site, and I am certain it will be good news to them if they can be assured that the additional grant will be available for them, as it is proposed that it should be for large burghs which are proposing to erect tenement houses.
The Secretary of State was rather surprised that we should have framed an Amendment in these terms, but he did not need to be surprised at that. We have in our arguments on previous Housing Bills put forward the need for adequate water supplies and drainage as a pre-requisite to the erection of new houses. We have argued on previous Bills that it was necessary for the Secretary of State for Scotland to encourage local authorities to provide water supplies and drainage before any new schemes of houses were proceeded with. I should be surprised if before the close of this Debate some of the representatives from the county constituencies have not something to say to the right hon. Gentleman on this particular point. I am expecting that some of those county representatives will point out the difficulties that their local authorities have had in going any

further with the building of houses on account of the shortage of water and adequate drainage.
I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the question of reconditioning. I am not keenly interested in the reconditioning of houses, unless the houses are of a pretty substantial character. I cannot conceive any local authority seeking to purchase houses and reconstructing and reconditioning them unless they are of a substantial character. I know houses that were built 40 years, and even more than 40 years ago, which, if given fair treatment, will be good substantial houses when many of the new houses are slums. They are stone-built houses, which will be houses when some of the new ones will be wrecks. In our Amendment we mean good substantial houses. We are not in favour of town councils buying up any sort of old houses.

Mr. Buchanan: The town council will be the judge of what should be bought. Can the hon. Member conceive the Edinburgh City Council, with its majority of landlords, differentiating about the sort of property he is talking about?

Mr. Watson: In addition to the town council the Department of Health will have a word to say. In addition to the Department of Health and the town council there will be public opinion. The public will be aware of what is going on and the town council would not be permitted by the ratepayers to buy up a lot of old property which could not be properly reconditioned. In our Amendment we have in mind good, substantial property that might be bought by a town council and reconditioned, to help us to solve the present housing difficulties. There is one part of our Amendment that has not been particularly discussed, and that is the reference to water and drainage. We say that before you can have housing schemes undertaken by local authorities all over Scotland, there must be adequate drainage and water supplies. There is hardly a county in Scotland where either water supplies or a good drainage system is not required. Every county council in Scotland, with one or two exceptions, has reported to the Scottish Office that housing schemes are held up because there is not a proper water supply or proper drainage system.
The Association of County Councils in Scotland has made repeated representations to the Scottish Office on this matter. As far back as 1921 the attention of the Scottish Office was drawn to this question, and repeatedly since that time, particularly in 1934 and 1936, the same organisation has been drawing the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that housing schemes cannot be undertaken in many counties because of the shortage of water supplies and proper drainage. The Rural Water Supplies Act was passed in 1934, but I should like to know what advantage that Act has been to Scotland. What advantage, for instance, has it been to Inverness? Has that Act enabled the Inverness County Council to build houses in some parts of the county in which it was necessary to build houses? I will give a few examples of the way in which county councils are held up because of the lack of these facilities. That is why I am expecting that we shall have county representatives noting the fact that we are again raising this question of adequate water supplies and drainage, in order that the local authorities may get the maximum amount of benefit from this Bill.
We say that these essential services should be provided for in this Measure. We are not discussing a Bill for water supplies or drainage, but we say that we cannot have new houses built in any part of a county or borough unless adequate water supplies and drainage are available. I do not see the hon. Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) present, but he has been here most of the time, and I expect that he will be returning. His own county council of Angus reported to the Secretary of State at the beginning of this year that:
There are a number of villages in the county where houses would have been erected hut for the fact that water is not available and that very considerable expense would be incurred in introducing water.
The report goes on to say:
The cost of this, in fact, made the erection of houses at many sites out of the question.
In Argyll the county council say:
There are several centres where attempts are being made to obtain sites for houses under the Housing Acts of 1930 and 1935, but where drainage and water cannot be provided except at prohibitive cost.
They go on to make reference to a meeting of the Property and Works Committee,

who desired the county council not to go in for these schemes because the cost would be absolutely prohibitive. Then we come to the county of Ayr, which is not wholly agricultural but can be described as industrial. They say:
The Government has in the past, by means of the Rural Water Supplies Act, made grants towards the provision of rural water supplies. The legislation in that connection remains on the Statute Book, but no funds are available for disbursement.
That is the testimony of the Ayr County Council. They go on to refer to the fact that the Ayr county has benefited to a certain extent through the administration of the Commissioner for the Special Areas. Fortunately, part of the county of Ayr comes within the Special Areas, and they tell us that £160,000 has been got from the Commissioner for the Special Areas for a drainage scheme throughout the valley of the River Garnock. They express the hope that they will be able to get more money from the Special Areas Fund in order to enable them to carry out another drainage system. Fortunately for them they have this advantage, but outside the Special Areas no such assistance can be given to the local authority in connection with any such schemes.
The county council of Berwick say:
Recently this council have had to abandon finally the installation of water and drainage to one of their villages solely because it was found that the cost would involve a much too high rate.
That was after incurring considerable expense in getting the report of an engineer. Here are local authorities incurring a considerable amount of expense in getting reports from engineers on the possibility of providing water and drainage, to enable them to build houses, and after that expense they have to turn down the whole scheme because it would put too big a burden on the local ratepayers. Then there is the county of Caithness. They want houses, but they cannot build them because they have no water. They tell us that the Rural Water Supplies Act is of no use to them. They say that a 25 per cent. grant under that Act is of no use, and they ask for a grant of 75 per cent. to enable them to provide water for places where they would be prepared to build houses.
Then I come to the county of Inverness. I hope the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) will listen to what his county council say:


There can be no doubt that the question of the provision of Government grants for rural water supplies is urgent, and that housing progress in rural areas is seriously hampered by the absence of adequate water supplies.
Government grant available under the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934, was, the county council say, hopelessly inadequate. It may interest the hon. Member to know that his county council do not ask for a 75 per cent. grant like the county council for Caithness; they want a go per cent. grant. In the county of Lanark there are no difficulties. The hon. Member for Bothwell has assured us that the housing committee have experienced no difficulty with regard to sites, and evidently they can provide water supplies and drainage. They are in a much more fortunate position with the assistance which the Housing Association is giving them than we are in the East of Scotland. Take the experience of the county of Peebles. The county council reported to the Secretary of State that from the engineer's estimates of the capital cost of two schemes in the county, and the annual expenditure on maintenance and supervision, the rate required for the Carlops scheme, where the rateable value is only £545, would be 9s. 10d. in the for £ water and drainage, and for the other scheme, the Eddleston scheme, where the rateable value is £500, the rate would be 8s. in the £. Is the Secretary of State surprised that housing is not being undertaken by county councils on the scale it ought to be?
The housing problem is not confined to the four great cities and the large burghs in Scotland. It is as acute in the county areas and country districts as it is in the larger burghs and cities. These are the difficulties which local authorities have to face, and they are not faced in the Bill. As to my own county, Fife, I am rather ashamed at some of the facts I have to give to the House. From the medical officer's report we are assured that in the western part of the county the difficulties regarding water supply and drainage are not so great. There are difficulties with regard to proper housing sites in the mining areas, but in the eastern part of the county the position is somewhat different. This information is also in the possession of the Scottish Office and it has also been sent to Scottish Members of Parliament, and should have been considered

by the Government when drawing up this Bill. The medical officer for the eastern part of the county reporting on 19th January this year referred to the inadequacy of the water supplies and drainage in that part of the county. He draws attention to the fact that he sent a letter to the county council on 14th May, 1934, concerning the absence of proper drainage facilities in 11 villages in the eastern part of the county, and his comment is:
The difference between 1934 and 1938 is that in a few of these villages an improvement has taken place.
In a letter dated 6th May, 1936, there is reference to the extent to which housing and other social developments are being handicapped through lack of adequate water supplies, and in a further letter on 16th June, he refers to certain villages which have not benefited from the regional water supply scheme. They have been considering for some time the position of adequate water supplies in the eastern part of the county, but here are a number of villages which would not benefit even if that scheme were carried through. It has not yet been carried through. Some time ago hon. Members interviewed the late Secretary of State for Scotland and tried to get a grant to carry through this particular scheme, but not a single penny has been given by the Scottish Office or the Government. In regard to drainage, the report of this medical officer contains this paragraph:
The steadily increasing number of renovated cottages is leading to the creation of insanitary conditions, particularly in villages through saturation of the soil with sewage effluent. In certain other villages, in some cases, there are wells and cesspools in the same gardens. As regards the absence of adequate drainage facilities, it can be said that in many communities conditions are fast being created when a halt will require to be called on the improvement of housing conditions in the interest of public safety.
That is not a nice picture. The houses that are being reconditioned and the new houses that are being built are becoming a menace to public health because there is no proper water supply or drainage. And the Secretary of State is surprised that we should place on the Order Paper an Amendment drawing attention to the fact that the Government are going on with the silly old policy they have pursued of building houses without taking the first step which should be taken, that is, to provide an adequate water supply


and proper drainage. This Measure may be of some assistance in large cities and burghs, in the populous centres where there is already an adequate water supply and drainage; but we have to say again to the Secretary of State what we said to him when he introduced his Agricultural Population Bill earlier this year. We raised the urgent need for providing adequate water supplies and drainage as well as making provision for local authorities to get an increased grant. I dare say that local authorities will welcome the additional grant and the merging of the two grants into one. I believe they will welcome this change, but unless the Secretary of State is going to give more consideration to the reconditioning of houses which are fit to be reconditioned, and which will be houses when many of the new houses have gone, and give local authorities encouragement to introduce proper drainage and adequate water supplies, then the expectations he expressed this afternoon will not be realised.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: Scotland has long been well known for her bad houses. During the fifteenth century an Italian ecclesiastic who afterwards became Pius II spoke of the very bad housing in Scotland, and during the eighteenth century Dr. Johnson has something to say on very much the same lines. I want to say a few words about the reconditioning of old houses. I want most emphatically to say that I want old houses reconditioned only when they are worth it, when they are really of substantial construction and, particularly, if they have any archæological interest. By reconditioning I do not mean just patched up, but properly restored, with a bathroom, modern drainage and everything of that kind adequately provided. I quite realise that reconditioning will only do a very small part of what is required. The number of houses which are really worth reconditioning in any part of Scotland is not very great. We must look mainly to the building of new houses.
I would point out that in the upper part of the High Street in Edinburgh there is a fine old early seventeenth century house, Gladstone's Land. It was condemned as a slum, and quite properly. It was in a fearful condition in every

possible way, which need not be described. It has been taken over by the National Trust, thoroughly and adequately restored and has now a charm which no modern building could possibly possess. With splendid old paintings on the walls, fine old timbering of the ceilings, Gladstone's Land has a real attractiveness which I wish were possessed by my own Black Country study. Then in other parts of Scotland if you visit houses connected with Robert Burns or cottages of the same general character which have been well restored, we must all admit that they have a very real charm.
It is a libel on the working classes to say that they do not appreciate real homes. I can, at any rate speak of that because I think few hon. Members owe their position here more directly to the working classes than I do, and the working classes, especially the working-class mothers, really do appreciate houses which have some character about them, some charm, some atmosphere of the past. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that an enormous amount of Glasgow might be torn down without anyone being any the poorer. As far as Glasgow is concerned, there are comparatively few buildings which I am particularly anxious to see preserved, that is, from the point of view as monuments of the past. But when the hon. Member speaks of new houses as being in the same class as motor cars, better when they are new than when they are old, would he include Glamis or Holyrood and those substantial old cottages which are scattered up arid down the Scottish countryside? I maintain that the older houses, strongly built, show very much better workmanship than we have at the present time, and are really worth preserving for the generations to come, not merely for their architectural character, not merely for their intrinsic beauty, not merely because they so exactly suit our Scottish landscapes, but because they make better homes, better places where children can be brought up, and are more likely to preserve the old traditions of all that is best in Scotland, than these modern council houses.
Nevertheless, although I am extremely enthusiastic about preserving the monuments of the past, I want to associate myself most emphatically with those hon. Members who have spoken about this


terrible reproach to Scotland, the very bad housing conditions that we all know exist in that country. I welcome this Bill, for undoubtedly it will do something. Nobody supposes, I imagine, that it is likely to solve the problem for all time, but at any rate it is a very real step forward, and undoubtedly it will lead to more houses being built where they are wanted. Therefore, I welcome it wholeheartedly, but I hope that whoever replies to the Debate for the Government will tell us why it is not opportune at the present time to make a real drive for reconditioning the monuments of the past—old houses that are worth preserving—just as much as for building new ones. I do not think it is possible to overstress that particular point.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to the need for co-ordinating housing requirements in Scotland, and when the Secretary of State pressed my hon. Friend for a little more explanation of what he meant, my hon. Friend said that he looked upon this problem as one that would have to be considered from the national point of view. On being pressed for a comment on the question of labour, my hon. Friend held out the hope that if the problem was looked at from the point of view of national requirements, the labour question would be considerably simplified. That is also my opinion. We have a Minister of Coordination for the purpose of supplying things which we hope will never be needed; therefore, there is no reason why we should not direct a little more coordination to the things that are urgently needed at the present time.
As to labour, my opinion is that the trade unions will not be as difficult as we are sometimes told by hon. Members, and that belief is borne out by the experience which I had immediately after the War. At that time, I happened to be a member of a local training advisory committee, which was representative of similar committees in most industries; and at that time, the unions responded to the overtures that were made by the Government in order to meet a somewhat similar problem to that which now faces us, although on that occasion it was a question of allowing the entry into industry of people who, on account of the War, had been prevented from taking advantage of

apprenticeships in their younger days. Consequently, I am of the opinion that if the Government approached the labour side of the problem and placed before the unions the facts, not only with regard to overcrowding and slum-clearance schemes, but the facts of the whole problem of housing conditions as they exist at the present time, the trade unions would respond. In Scotland, the conception of housing which used to be held has undergone a considerable change, and I consider that in future most of the houses in Scotland will have to be modified. If that range of view is taken, there need be no fear, on the part of those responsible for the guidance of labour, that it cannot be made much more accessible than it is now.
The Secretary of State referred to the possibility of creating tenements on central sites in cities. I do not look very hopefully upon the creation of any more tenements, even on central sites, for that appears to me to be the least desirable type of housing on locations that are the least suitable. In those central sites there is not proper air for people, and to put people one above the other in tenements on sites of that description does not obtain my support, particularly because the effect of tenements on the health of the people of the city of Glasgow. In the last Report of the corporation, I noticed that there was an ordinary expenditure of £1,142,000, specifically connected with the health services, although I would perhaps eliminate £7,000 in connection with meat inspection. That burden which is placed upon the city of Glasgow could be to some extent modified, and an indication as to what modification could be made may be obtained by a comparison of the position of Birmingham and Glasgow a few years ago. When I was on the council a few years ago, I made investigations, and I found that there were four diseases which caused Glasgow to make a daily expenditure, but which cost Birmingham practically nothing. They were scarlet fever, erysipelas, whooping cough and measles. Although these cost Birmingham very little, they cost Glasgow no less than £60,000, and non-pulmonary tuberculosis in itself cost £40,000, so that there was a total of £100,000, which the medical officer of health of the city of Glasgow definitely laid at the door of the tenement buildings which are so prominent in that city.
Much has been said about the new alternative methods being capable of meeting the requirements. I shall not stand in the way of the construction of houses that are so urgently needed, but I am rather apprehensive of what type of house will be produced sometimes by the use of concrete. During the past month, hon. Members have received splendid brochures from the Cement Manufacturers' Association, every one of them showing what can be done once cement is brought into contact with artists and architects who have some artistry about them; but I am rather afraid of what the result will be in the case of working-class houses built of concrete, plus an insistence on economy in construction. I am afraid that such houses will not meet the requirements of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), who desires to have in the countryside houses which will please the eye.
The position of Glasgow is one that requires special attention. In a survey of overcrowding that took place about two years ago and which gave the position as it was at 23rd April, 1936, I find that it was indicated that houses of the following types were required—three apartment houses, 24,000; four-apartment houses, 18,000; five-apartment houses, 3,400; and houses of six and more apartments 115, making a total requirement of about 46,000. In the same report, it was stated that Glasgow contemplated, in order to meet this position, the erection of 15,300 houses. However, it must be borne in mind that the figures I have given were based on the assumption that the factors and others would let their properties to families that would exhaust the capacity of every house in Scotland. The authorities of Glasgow deemed that that was too much to expect, and therefore the corporation's figure of the houses required to meet overcrowding and slum clearance was not 46,000, but 65,000. This requirement was to be met in 10 years, if their policy could be acted up to, by the erection of 6,500 houses a year. Unfortunately, that has not been possible, and I am informed that in a little less than three years, only about 6,000 houses have been built. Glasgow is not getting those houses, but I am not prepared to place the blame on

a lack of foresight on the part of the local authorities, for in the report for this year, issued by the Housing Department, I find that there are in course of erection 3,336 houses, commenced but not yet completed, 4,330 houses, and schemes in preparation, 5,086 houses. It might also be permissible to include 11,000 houses which it is proposed to build on land which has been acquired. This shows that the corporation have conceived to a considerable extent what the needs are, but apparently there are obstacles which make it impossible for them to proceed as speedily as possible. To deal with this position it will be essential to have some co-ordination in Scotland, and Glasgow ought to be looked upon as worthy of special consideration by the Government.
A great deal has been said in the Debate about reconditioning, and the Secretary of State said that, although it is not provided for in this Act, reconditioning will have to be examined. That statement does not seem to me to show much faith in the alternative methods of building providing what is required. There has been criticism of that part of the Amendment which deals with reconditioning, and lest the point should not already have been touched upon, let me say that those responsible for the Amendment have endeavoured to make a distinction between reconditioning and reconstruction. We have visualised the possibility of reconditioning being directed to those houses that are rather dilapidated in character, and in using the term "reconstruction" we did not contemplate directing any money to houses, buildings or tenements that were not in such a state that the word "reconstruction" could be properly applied to them. Moreover, it is specific in the Amendment that we do not contemplate any money being directed into the possession of private individuals; the reconstruction must be done through the medium of purchase by the local authorities. Reference has been made to one of our colleagues on the Departmental Committee who signed a minority report recognising that there was no reason why there should be given to the proprietors of houses an advantage that is withheld from other private investors. He stated clearly that his objection was to the private individuals having their premises reconditioned. Having said that, I do not wish to impute to him


the acceptance even of our interpretation of reconstruction.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to contemplate reconstruction, and for one reason only, the reason to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), namely, the young married couples. In St. Rollox, which I have the honour to represent, I cannot hold out any hopes of there being buildings to which reconstruction would do any good. I have seen people going from St. Rollox to the outskirts of the city and occupying new houses prepared by local authorities and others. I have heard Members in this House speak in glowing terms about the response on the part of the families who had been taken out of bad tenement buildings to these new houses where all conveniences were available for them. But I have also seen young people, who had gone with their parents from the old tenement buildings to these new houses and to these improved conditions, coming back again to their old environment, to look for accommodation for themselves when they, in their turn, contemplated marriage. Hundreds of young people who had moved out with their families to houses and to conditions, which previously they had not enjoyed, had to come back, when they were about to get married themselves and look for homes in surroundings similar to those from which they had previously escaped.
Therefore, I think that something might be done, as regards reconstruction, in order to meet the clamant need of young married couples. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that we must not allow ourselves to take up an attitude of old people against young people, or of married people against those who are contemplating marriage. I think, from my personal experience of the conditions which I have described, that something could be done to meet this need and as a substitute for other measures, I would be prepared to contemplate the reconstruction of property of a character which would not be a disgrace to a local authority if they purchased it outright for public control.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Hunter: The Secretary of State informed us at the beginning of this Debate that there was a housing difficulty in Scotland, and that the purpose of the Bill was

to secure increased grants in order to encourage local authorities to proceed with building at a faster pace. I think the local authorities are perfectly satisfied with the new grants and consider these proposals to be reasonable. They are also willing to accept the relative rates of contribution as fixed for the period to September, 1942. They are not, however, enamoured of the proposal that they should be responsible for half the amount of the Exchequer contribution, and they are inclined to protest against that arrangement. Otherwise, as regards the grants and the encouragement to new building they are satisfied. At the same time I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposals in the Amendment with reference to water supplies and drainage. This is not, we have been told, a water supply and drainage Bill, but there is no doubt that if a Bill to establish or extend water supplies and drainage were introduced, it would give a tremendous impetus to building, such as the Secretary of State desires to see, especially in rural areas.
I am also strongly in favour of reconstructing some of the old property. If local authorities had the power and were given the grants to purchase old properties which are capable of being modernised and reconstruct them, it would be a tremendous help in the provision of houses. What is happening is that while we are erecting new houses to take the place of slums and overcrowded dwellings, we are not increasing the number of houses in any community, and that is creating new trouble. Powers ought to be given to enable authorities to meet normal conditions and the normal growth of communities. In the city of Perth over 1,000 applications for houses are waiting to be dealt with, and the corporation is finding it most difficult to meet those requirements. That is due, in some measure, to the great change that has taken place there as in the centres of all our cities, owing to the replacement of dwelling houses by business premises. Unless we make some arrangement whereby local authorities, while dealing with slum clearance and overcrowding, can proceed at the same time with the provision of normal houses to meet the normal growth of the community, then there is a great danger of that change in housing conditions to which I have referred, becoming more rapid.
The Secretary of State said that it was proposed to have two-roomed houses for old people. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) that it is a great mistake in this matter to deal only with the old people. We must remember the need to-day of the young people. There are scores of young people living with their parents, or living in lodgings, who cannot get married because they cannot get houses at any price. I think it is a mistaken policy to take the old folk out of the old houses to which they have become accustomed and put them into new houses, while at the same time we are putting young people, who have probably been brought up under far better conditions than the older people, back into the old houses. It seems to me that that is a reversal of the ordinary natural course of events. The young people should have a chance of beginning their married lives under the best conditions, rather than under conditions which may have been thought good enough for their fathers and mothers, but are not good enough according to modern standards.
I do not think that many local authorities will favour the erection of hostels. I know one hostel which was erected by a private trust and which would, it was thought, meet the requirements of people who could not afford separate houses, but the great drawback to it is that all the residents have to use a common kitchen, and they object to the lack of privacy. I think all people desire privacy and do not wish to let the neighbours know all about their cooking, and so forth, and the hostel has been a comparative failure because of that lack of privacy. With reference to the extension of housing associations I think there is a better way than that of treating the housing question, certainly as regards many areas outside the Special Areas. There is in the city of Perth a voluntary association known as "Better Homes, Limited." I believe there is a similar association in Stirling. By voluntary efforts and by a voluntary method of raising money, they make it practicable to purchase old properties, which can be got cheaply; they spend money on reconstructing those houses, with the result that in Perth and, to an even greater extent in Stirling, they have succeeded in converting many old houses into new houses which have all modern

comforts. I think it would be an advantage if it were possible for the Secretary of State to make some grant to associations of that kind in order to encourage them in improving the housing conditions of the people.
Some hon. Members have objected to the erection of tenements. I believe that in the centres of cities it would be a good thing to erect more tenements—not such as those we knew of in the old days, but modern tenements. If some of these sites were cleared it should be possible to erect tenements of a modern type with abundant air space all round them There is a desire on the part of many people nowadays to dwell in flats. Many people object to going out into the countryside to live and are not pleased at having to keep gardens in good order. They would prefer to live in the city close to their work, in tenements of a modern kind—not like those which existed in the past where there was, perhaps, only one lavatory for half a dozen families. Conditions of that kind are out of date, and tenements to-day can be constructed on much better lines. One has only to look around London to see the thousands of tenements which are springing up—great massive buildings—and we can also see that they are in great demand.

Mr. Maxton: Yes at £250 a year.

Mr. Hunter: I am not thinking of the kind to which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) may be accustomed.

Mr. Maxton: I read the advertisements.

Mr. Hunter: I am thinking of the kind that would appeal to people of the working class like those whom the hon. Member represents so well. I believe it would be possible, in Scotland, to erect flats of the type which I have in mind and let them at reasonable rents, because I understand that the greater part of the cost in London is due to ground rent.

Mr. MacLaren: It is the same in Scotland.

Mr. Hunter: I am sure that, at all events in the city of Perth, they could be built and let at rents which would be reasonable and well within the capacity of ordinary working-class people. I think, on the whole however, it is the reconditioning question that the Government


ought to tackle and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that his sympathies lay in that direction. If he goes round the local authorities—and I am glad to see that he is doing so—and ascertains their views, he will find a very strong body of opinion in favour of reconditioning houses which, to-day, are being destroyed, and destroyed sometimes in such small groups, that it is not possible to get the space to build great new tenements. The Secretary of State has done good to the local authorities by introducing this Bill, and if he takes an early opportunity of considering the question of water supply and drainage, I believe he will find it possible to make tremendous progress in housing activity. There is, I think, a new movement in this direction which did not exist some years ago. There is a desire to make housing conditions better than they have been in the past, but that can only be done if the local authorities receive the necessary support in grants to meet the extraordinary cost of providing water and drainage. I hope we may receive from the Government the assurance that some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friends on the other side of the House as well as by myself will be the subject of another Bill at a very early date, and, if so, I am sure that this Bill will meet with a good reception in all parts of the House.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Some of my hon. Friends have already gone over the Amendment pretty thoroughly, and I shall refer rather more to the position in the Northern areas. I rather thought that when the Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the figure of a quarter of a million as being the housing requirement for Scotland, he was going to talk throughout his speech in terms of a quarter of a million houses in a really big and generous way, but we have no real indication in the Bill that the problem is being tackled, or that there is any prospect of its being tackled, on the scale of the figures which the Minister gave us when he mentioned the deficiencies in Scottish housing. If he waits long enough. I think he will find that the Home Secretary, with his Prison Reform Bill, will be catching up with the proposals for the reform of Scottish housing. There is more attraction in some of the proposals

for the reconditioning of our prisons under the new Bill that is to be introduced than I would expect to find in many of the existing houses in Scotland under the present system and under the small changes which are being wrought by this Bill.
I remember once reading in one of Chesterton's essays a comment on how much we are moved by the ruins of an old building and how little we are moved by the ruin of a man. Chesterton may have overlooked one point, that a ruinous building in many cases produces a ruined man. After all, the home, is the first and most intimate environment of every child that is born into the community—I do not simply want a shelter, four walls and a roof; but a comfortable home, with all its associations. That makes a tremendous difference to the future of every child who is going to grow up and serve the community. Malnutrition, the housing problem, water supply, have all come to the fore recently, because the public conscience has been struck by how little has been done over the past generation for the rehousing of our people, the provision of the basic necessities and the fundamental needs for comfortable and decent living.
A quarter of a million houses is a big requirement, calling for a big effort, and success in meeting it would be a sufficient reward for a Scottish Secretary prepared really to tackle the job for the sake of getting it done. I will not criticise the right hon. Gentleman himself. He has not been long in his present position, but during the time that he has been there I am glad to say that he has come very much into contact with the Scottish local authorities, and he has done his best, I believe, to get first-hand information about housing and other conditions in Scotland—more so, I think, than most Scottish Secretaries who have preceded him. I hope that that first-hand knowledge will be applied in such a way as to leave, after he has left that position, a monument worthy of the greatest efforts of which he is capable in the form of the adequate and comfortable rehousing of the Scottish people.
I am going to deal with the question raised in the Amendment which I think is the most important one. To me, the question


of the reconditioning or reconstructing of existing houses is by no means as important as the building of entirely new houses. I can sympathise with hon. Members who have expressed the desire to see the preservation of certain of our beautiful old historic buildings in Scotland for its own sake, but I cannot say myself that I should like to see the wholesale purchase of existing properties of any age by local authorities for housing with public money. I would not like to see the problem tackled mainly from that angle. But, possibly parallel with a vigorous drive for the rehousing of the people in new houses, it may be of some help to reconstruct a limited number, carefully selected, of these existing houses. I would not like to see a wholesale buying-up of old houses. I would prefer to see houses built by modern methods, with modern materials, if you like, and built in a modern style. People do not like to go into ancient buildings even in order to gratify the archaeological taste of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah). I believe that most people in those areas where housing is really a serious problem would like to start out afresh, forgetting the conditions under which they have only too long lived and going into a modern house, furnishing it anew if possible, and really getting a fresh start by settling down into new houses with their families.
Turning to the question of water supply, I have frequently raised this matter in the House in connection with the Highlands and Islands, and the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to write encouragingly in reply to my questions on the subject. We have had assurances from the Government that they are considering the matter and that they have asked the county councils to do something about it. The right hon. Gentleman says, in the time-worn phrase, that they have explored every avenue, but those avenues always seem to lead into a cul de sac. He says they are leaving no stone unturned, but they have left sufficient stones unturned to reconstruct all the houses in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have frequently assured us, and the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has repeatedly assured me, that these things in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are "under review." It is nice to know

that things are under review, but in the meantime the people are without water, and without communal water supplies we cannot hope to have any planned modern communal housing, and we cannot expect to have people satisfied and comfortable in houses which have not a water supply. To start off at scratch and build a fine new house at the public expense, to ask somebody to go and live in it and be happy in it, is all very well, until he asks, "Where shall I get my water for drinking and washing?" and that question still remains unanswered.
When I ask the Government now about water supplies they look as if I had discovered a new drink and as though they were astonished at the idea of a Highlander asking for water. The Highlanders get plenty of water, but they get a perpendicular supply rather than the horizontal supply that they desire. It would be a platitude to say that you cannot have cleanliness without a water supply, but you really cannot. People, mainly our younger ladies, get extremely romantic about Arabian sheiks, but, after all, the sheik gets a bath only about once in a couple of years and cannot be a very cleanly person to deal with. He may be perfectly reconciled to that, but there are thousands of people in Scotland who have no desire to be like the sheiks and wait for the annual oasis before they take a bath. What does a bath actually mean to a dweller in the country districts? There are many places where he may have to go a quarter of a mile with a couple of pails half-a-dozen times in order to get his water, and then heat it over a fire and pour it into an improvised vessel dignified with the name of a bath. Or an honest tub. Recently the Highland rural dwellers have been threatened that if they improve their houses in order to get the accommodation which their family requirements demand, the assessor from the county council, under our stupid rating system, puts £2 or £3 on the house. This happens if an occupier thinks of putting one of his children in a room by itself instead of having his house overcrowded. If he adds a bath to the house he is also penalised in this way so that the inducement to take a bath under the Government's health policy is immediately countered by the rating system of Scotland and the failure of the Government's housing policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) referred to the demand of the Inverness County Council for a 90 per cent. subsidy for water supplies in the county. I represent a part of the County of Inverness, a part which is the most neglected by the county council itself. There is good reason why an area like Inverness or Ross-shire should ask for a higher subsidy for water supplies than some of the areas which my hon. Friend described. In that area there is the highest record of unemployment in the United Kingdom. Moreover, there is a great landward derated area. It is impossible out of local rating to finance water supplies on any scale commensurate with modern needs in those districts, and to ask for that higher subsidy is only reasonable and in proportion to the rating position and the needs of the district. The problem is not one which we can afford, from a national point of view, to leave in the hands of local bodies here and there squabbling about all sorts of local and personal points of view. It is a national question and should be dealt with as such. To ask for a fairly high subsidy in a highly derated area does not appear to me to be illogical, for you have to make your claims according to the rating position. Without a water supply sanitation is impossible. There cannot be sanitation to any worth-while degree unless there is an adequate, suitable and convenient water supply. The question of seepage and contamination of the whole environment by the dry system and present methods is well known to the Secretary of State and the health authorities. The question of drainage, too, goes parallel with the questions of water supply and sanitation. When the Minister is tackling any one of these questions, he should always take into account all the facts affecting the other two.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) dealt with the question of labour supply. He said, what was in the minds of most of my hon. Friends on this side, that if we guarantee to the workers whom we are asking to undertake an essential and important national service, security of employment and good wages, with the usual rights of paid holidays and all the other rights which they can claim by virtue of the importance of their service, we shall attract into the building industry many thousands of young people who are now unemployed or taking part

in distasteful occupations. There is a shortage of building labour in New Zealand, but the reason is different from that which accounts for the shortage in this country. The reason is that under a Socialist Government they are doing things in a vigorous way and on a large scale to meet the needs of rehousing and housing reform. As the result of that great drive there is a natural shortage of building workers. They have absorbed as many as they can and they will attract more because they are guaranteeing not only a minimum wage and paid holidays, but also a certain period during which there will be security of employment.
Under the private system we cannot say that we have that, and since the Government will not adopt the other system, we cannot have its attractions. Therefore, we are faced with this position. There is a shortage of the workers. We are asked for a solution, but the Minister will not give any indication that he is prepared to accept the only solution that has been offered. We believe that this problem should be tackled as a national problem, which it is, to improve the national health and to provide for the housing of the people. It should be tackled as a national problem by the Government. The Government are ready with all the cheering support of their back benchers to demand a national effort for the rearmament of the country. When that national effort is asked for for the housing of the people, this party will give every assistance and will offer no criticism but that which is intended as constructive. When the Government are prepared to tackle it as a national problem and guarantee security of employment to the workers throughout the year, they will attract young men who are now unemployed, such as many in my constituency who have no possibility of employment for years to come. The Minister of Labour cannot indicate any prospect of employment for many of these young men. If they are guaranteed security of employment and decent wages, many of them are prepared to accept work in the building industry. I do not think the Minister has any excuse in that connection. I hope that he is not going to make excuses for himself or to avoid this solution. He may, although I doubt it, undertake to recognise this as a national problem and take a national responsibility through the Government


for the security of labour which is invited into the building industry. If he does, we shall all welcome that change of method, even if it is not altogether a change of heart.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Allan Chapman: We have been given an exordium by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and he has also taken us for an excursion. It started in the Highlands, it touched upon Arabian sheiks, we passed by G. K. Chesterton, and the hon. Member, with a facility which could come only from a Highlander, then took a cross-country journey and managed to visit what I can only call "His Majesty's compulsory tenements." Had I tried hard, I do not think I could have brought in proposed penal reform under this heading. Then we had a most interesting disquisition on the question of water supplies, what I can define only as a peroration on plumbing. It is very necessary and very desirable, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear those remarks very much in mind. The hon. Members quotation was, I think, "How much one is moved by old ruins." I do not know whether I took the words exactly, but they will do.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I was quoting Chesterton—I could not quote him exactly—and said that he was surprised to find how much people are moved by the ruins of old buildings and how little they are moved by the ruin of human beings.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member and I are at one, because I cannot remember the quotation either, but I think we have both got the sense of it. In applying it to some of the centres in Scotland I desire to turn it round and to say how much the old ruins ought to be moved—those homes which are called homes but are really wrecks and ruins. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon bringing this Bill before the House with such speed. The hon. Member for the Western Isles paid a justifiable tribute to the energy my right hon. Friend has displayed since he was called to his high office, and I think that augurs well for the future of Scotland. Neither can those who are always complaining that Scottish affairs do not get full attention

in the House complain on this particular score to-day. Here, in the opening days of the Session, thanks to the energy of my right hon. Friend, we have this extremely important Bill before us. Opinions on the legislative child that is being born this afternoon seem to vary. Some think it is a beautiful child, some think it is a small child, but no one seems to think it is a perfect child; but my right hon. Friend can have this consolation, that when he succeeds in bringing in a Bill which is agreed to by hon. Members in all parts of this House, he will not be Secretary of State for Scotland, he will be an archangel. He can take that to his great comfort.
More seriously, this Bill is definitely a step forward; how big a step time alone can tell. I do not want to dwell too much upon the housing conditions in Scotland, because the position has been so eloquently painted. The subsidies are being substantially increased, and the charge upon the Exchequer will be a substantial one, yet I shall have no hesitation in going to my constituents and justifying that expenditure, even at the present time, because of the shocking housing conditions. As in the constituencies of other Members, there are in my division whole streets of houses that can only be called hovels. They are hovels in which I would hesitate to kennel my own spaniels, let alone put human beings into them. As long as those dreadful houses remain we have to make a supreme effort both in the matter of planning and of finance to see that they are wiped out.
One point that occurs to me about the Bill is this: The increased subsidies, and, I presume, the time limit which has been placed upon them, are an inducement to the local authorities to hurry up their housing programmes. I am very much concerned about the question of labour, which has been touched upon by so many hon. Members. If my memory serves me correctly we have received replies that one of the reasons why, in certain areas, the number of houses going up has not been as great as we should desire has been the difficulty of getting labour, because all labour has been absorbed. I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend, with his usual foresight, has already established contact with the trade unions, who will very naturally have a great desire to help forward this very laudable


object. I trust that we shall get an expansion of the building industry in Scotland.

Mr. Colville: We are in close touch with the trade unions on this subject, and they have proved helpful, and I make a further appeal.

Mr. Hicks: While I hesitate to enter into a discussion where Scotsmen are concerned, I would say on behalf of the building trade operatives and the building trade employers that this question has been the subject of very serious consideration and that it is being examined very deeply. The latest report suggests that the position is due more to lack of organisation than to the shortage of labour, but the committee dealing with that is now awaiting a report.

Mr. Chapman: Those were two very useful interventions. May I say that I am sure my Scottish colleagues here heartily welcome the intervention of the hon. Member, who has such great knowledge on this subject? We are only too delighted that English Members should come in to listen to our Debates. The statement merely confirms what I said about the foresight of my right hon. Friend; he had already anticipated what had in mind. It is clear that this problem of labour is not an insuperable one, and that it has, as the hon. Member has indicated, the good will of the trade unions. What we want in this problem is the team spirit, and it is clear that we are going to get it, and that we shall make some impression upon this dire problem. We see the tremendous numbers of the unemployed, as the hon. Member for the Western Isles has mentioned, and surely we can, by training and all the rest of it, fit them into this great industry.
As I was about to say when the hon. Member opposite was good enough to give me that information, this housing problem, as I see it, is not a matter of five years or of ten years. We shall still be dealing with housing in Scotland a quarter of a century hence. As time goes on we shall want to raise the present standard. There are a great many people living in houses which do not at the moment come within the category of overcrowding or of slum clearance, but in the course of a few years we shall, possibly, desire to raise standards and those houses will then be due to

be replaced. With a progressive policy like that I think there is a great future for the building industry in Scotland, and I am delighted to learn that the matter of labour has received such immediate attention.
I want to touch on a question which has been mentioned by so many Members, and which in one form is mentioned in the Amendment which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that is the question of reconstruction or reconditioning. I am not clear in my own mind as to the exact difference between reconstruction and reconditioning, but I think Members on all sides of the House are clear that whether it is reconstruction or reconditioning, there must in the first place be the most careful examination of the property to be dealt with. It should be one which can be adapted readily and easily to make really comfortable homes, not makeshift homes; it should have a reasonable life before it when it is reconstructed; and it should be, too, a building pleasing of aspect. I believe that with the proper supervision and attention by the Department of Health reconditioning could be quite well carried out on an economic basis and with great relief to the housing problem.
It was the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) who brought up the question of the young married couples; it was mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter). I find in my own division that the difficulty of providing accommodation for young couples desiring to get married, or who have just got married and have had to join other families because of the lack of accommodation, is a very important question. I believe we are witnessing a great many tragedies; that a great many marriages have failed not because of loss of affection but because of the conditions under which young people have been compelled to start married life. If reconditioning can help that situation it will be a most desirable social move forward.
On the question of reconditioning I feel that the ultimate object must be new houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth alluded to the economic aspects of owning a garden. There are many people who cannot afford to own a garden, although I have not yet met anyone in my own division who would not give his right hand to have a little garden of his own. It is one of the pleasantest things in


life. I cannot visualise my own existence without a garden of some sort—not that I claim to be a gardener, but that I do enjoy flowers. I am sure that it is so with people in my division, for I have seen it when they have been good enough to visit me. A garden is one of the amenities of life that lift up life and make it worth while. I want to see people with their own houses and their own gardens. But at present many are living under such terrible conditions that a reconditioned house would be a veritable palace.
Let us remember that some of the people who are living in those conditions are not young and that unless a great move is made some of them may not see their new homes. That point was brought home to me rather pathetically when I was going round some of the houses in my Division in Alpine Street, Blantyre. The buildings were put up a long time ago. I remember going into a house where there were a couple of box beds across one end of the room. The place was scrupulously clean. The good wife had a family to look after, and I believe she had to repaper the room every three or four months because of the damp on the walls, in order to keep the place pleasant. What struck me was that, hanging over the box bed and on nails in the wall was new furniture, handchairs and one or two things like that. She saw that I noticed them, and she said a little shyly: "I am afraid I was too optimistic. I bought that furniture when I heard of the possibility of the new houses; but that was seven years ago, and it is still hanging there." That brought home the point, and I must say I was quite moved. Visiting the same row I saw a little boy running about the place with a scarf wrapped across his chest. His mother said to me: "That little boy of five has just come back from a tuberculosis sanitorium to these surroundings; what chance has he got?" What answer was there, except that we must push on and get these new houses at the very earliest possible moment?
The point at which hon. Members opposite and I part company is on the question of private enterprise, in this matter of reconditioning. I believe in private enterprise, and I am not going to apologise for be-lieving in it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] An hon. Member says "Shame," but I happen to believe that

private enterprise is the only system that will foot a budget of £1,000,000,000 a year.

Mr. Westwood: It has produced the bad houses.

Mr. Chapman: Yes, it has produced some bad houses in the past and I realise that that is one of the faults of the system of capitalism in the past, but it is up to us who believe in private enterprise to see that this fault is put right as soon as possible. That is a matter of very strict supervision by the Department of Health and we shall in time get these things put right. But that is not the main point in my case. I want to give an illustration. I received a letter from a grand old boy in my division. I think he is 91. He wrote me a long, long letter, and his writing is much more legible than mine can ever hope to be. In the course of it he told me that he had put the whole of his life savings into two or three working-class houses. He said that the houses were well built, but he was disturbed because they had been condemned under a clearance order, and were coming down. I am not debating whether those houses were fit for reconditioning or not, but I suggest that the matter is important to a great many small owners of that kind whose property could be reconditioned. We ought to be in a position to enable them to put these properties into good working order. If you cannot do it on the basis of subsidy then let them have the money on the basis of a loan on reasonable terms. I do not expect that hon. Members opposite will agree on that point, but we have to tackle rehousing on a broad front.
I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend a point concerning experimental house-building and I should like the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to inform us whether, under the experimental building Clauses of the Bill, it will be possible to carry out experimental reconditioning of an approved house or houses. It is a thing that has never been tried out officially, so far as I know, but I think it might be worth while trying under a Bill of this sort because we should learn a great deal from it and be able to talk with a great deal more certainty.
This rehousing is an immense task and we have to tackle it with every agency possible. I have not trotted out figures just now because


I gave them in the House towards the end of last Session, but I believe it is a fact that, in proportion to the population, more municipal building is going on in Scotland than in England. Until we have a real revival of private enterprise in the matter of working-class house building I do not think that we shall overtake this problem. I do not overrate the effect of the Scottish rating system on house property in Scotland, but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are approaching the Secretary of State with a request for an investigation or a Royal Commission into rating, and if their request is in suitable general terms, it would certainly have my support, because I devoted a large part of the last speech I made in this House to an appeal for rating reform. My final word is that my right hon. Friend should go forward with every agency in his power and wipe the dreadful scourge of bad housing from Scotland.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman) has treated us to a very kindly and sympathetic speech, which showed that his heart is in the right place, so far as the Scottish housing problem is concerned. He does not agree with us in believing in the system of public enterprise, as opposed to the private enterprise for which he stands; I think he must recognise when looking at the monument to private enterprise represented by the present housing conditions of Scotland, that there is great justification for us at least to question whether private enterprise is a system which can be permanently upheld. Indeed, he gave a very great welcome today to a Bill which clearly indicates the failure of private enterprise and the necessity for supplementing the efforts of private enterprise in respect of this very great problem.
To-day the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill with a happy speech, in which he used a number of similes pertaining to the racecourse and to horses. They reminded me that when he was standing for election in 1931 he described himself as a "Grand National" candidate. He, apparently, brings forward this Bill, looking upon it as a Grand National Government Bill, but the response which the Bill has received will probably have damped his ardour slightly

and have caused him to question whether the Bill is as valuable as he endeavoured to make out when he described it in the first instance. It is a Bill which gives increased subsidies from the State, but at the same time demands increased subsidies from the local authorities. I am afraid that when the full implications of the Bill are recognised by local authorities—and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has surely shown that grave doubt can be thrown upon the value of the Bill from the local authorities' point of view—the local authorities may not be quite so enthusiastic as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to indicate that they have been.
The opening speech of the right hon. Gentleman caused me to reflect upon the very great difference in the attitude of hon. Members opposite as compared with their attitude last Friday. Last Friday we were pleading a great human problem, the problem of workmen's compensation, and the argument used against us in our endeavour to get something done now quickly to relieve the position of those men who are disabled and the dependants of those who have been killed in industry, was that in the near future a Royal Commission was to be set up to inquire into the whole question of workmen's compensation, and for that reason Members on the Government side of the House voted against giving effect to the very urgent amendments in workmen's compensation law that we desired to bring about. To-day, notwithstanding the fact that an inquiry is already proceeding into the question of the increasing costs of building in Scotland, this Bill is brought forward before knowledge is obtained as to the reasons for and the possibility of dealing with those increased costs.
It may be a suspicious way of looking at the matter, but the higher subsidies that are to be provided under the Bill might be looked upon as being for the purpose of enabling those high costs to continue and to be paid for by the higher subsidies. When we look at the normal subsidies, not taking any account of special subsidies, we see that the five-apartment house is to have concentrated upon it a capital sum, in 40 years, of no less than £720. In addition, there is the rent that will come along during that period. I wonder what is to be the


initial cost of those houses, and whether we are going to get the real value that is represented by the enormous amount of money that is being expended in this direction. It seems to me that, with subsidies like these from the State and from the local authorities behind those houses, the people who occupy the houses ought to be able to live in them rent-free, instead of having to pay the very considerable rents that are demanded at the present time.
The Bill, I think, errs in another direction. It is for such a short period. Here we are making another attack upon this very grave Scottish problem of housing, and there is a time limit of four years for its operation. It seems to me that it cannot be supposed by any Member of the House that the Scottish housing problem is going to be solved inside that period of four years. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rutherglen made reference to a five or 10 years period, and clearly indicated that he too thought, though he did not put it in the words I am using, that the time limit in this Bill is much too short.
I have been interested during the course of this Debate in the distinction that has been drawn between the words "reconditioning" and "reconstruction." I think there is a very definite difference between those two activities. Reconditioning, it seems to me, is simply like patching an old garment, whereas reconstruction is making a new garment; or perhaps I should more properly say, in terms of building, that it means a real alteration of an existing building, such as making three houses into two, thereby adding rooms to existing dwellings and in that way bringing them up to date. There are hon. Members who take the line that reconstruction is something which we should not look at. For myself, I have been sorry on occasion to see substantial stone buildings—and I have a prejudice in favour of stone houses—being demolished, and the stone taken away. Shortly afterwards one has seen that same stone being embodied, perhaps, in a fine new villa, built out of stone which had previously been used in the construction of a humble tenement. I think that, if we can use the buildings that are there—they must, of course, be carefully chosen, not shoddy buildings, but capable of being brought up to

modern requirements—there is a very great deal to be said for wise reconstruction. In my own constituency I have seen efforts made along that line, and I am sure that many of the reconstructed houses have proved very beneficial to those who were desperately in need of houses. In the condition in which we find ourselves at the present time, with people living under shocking housing conditions, any destruction of the fabric of a building which seems likely to be capable of reconstruction on sound lines to make a sound habitation seems to be a shame. It seems wrong to destroy the fabric walls of such a building if it can be made, at reasonable expense and under good conditions, into a home for people who otherwise would be denied the opportunity of living under good conditions for a very much longer time.
Much is said about saving the old character and aspect of buildings that have some historical interest or are interesting from the point of view of period architecture, if I may put it in that way. There is much to be said for reminding ourselves of the character of the buildings in which those who preceded us have lived, and, if we can manage to retain that old character and at the same time provide healthy and proper modern conveniences inside those buildings, surely there is something to be said for reconstruction along such lines. I think the Bible itself tells us not to remove the old landmarks, and I believe that, in reminding ourselves of the past, we are giving ourselves the opportunity of learning, in a way that we cannot otherwise learn, where we have come from. In looking forward to what this Bill intends to do, whether it succeeds in it or not, we are certainly looking forward to where we want to go, and at the present time we want to go as rapidly as possible towards very much better housing in, conditions in our native land of Scotland.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. T. Henderson: I find it very difficult, after having listened all day to this Debate, to find anything new on which to speak; but I am very sorry that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has left the House, because I am convinced that this Bill will be no more effective than any other Housing Bill we have produced. The Secretary of State was quite correct when he said that the greatest trouble connected with house


building is the lack of skilled workmen; and I was very pleased when the hon. Member for East Woolwich, who, after all, is a big noise in the building trade, informed us that the committee was giving every consideration to methods by which work could be proceeded with more quickly than is the case just now. The Government themselves make the very same statement in reply to questions from this side. They assure hon. Members that the matters we have raised are being considered by the Government, and are having their best attention.
This question of labour can be settled only by the building operatives; and the present conditions—that is to say, the greater intensity of the rearmament programme—are going to make it more difficult still to get houses built, for, unless you get the good will of the building operatives, you are going to have the men go where the biggest wages are paid. When we discussed the Scottish Estimates we were able to show that bricklayers were leaving the building of houses to go to rearmament schemes—that is to say, leaving 1s. 7d. an hour for 2s. 3d. You will get the necessary skilled labour for the building of houses only when you get agreement with the operatives. I am sure the hon. Member for East Woolwich, as head of the bricklayers' union, has not given the Government any guarantees.
I could paint pictures of horrible dwellings, but I am not going to do it, because everybody knows all about them. I am convinced, however, that these conditions are a disgrace to a so-called Christian country, and anything which will wipe out the present housing conditions of Scotland is well worth while. I want to put a question to the Under-Secretary. It is a simple question—at least, I think it is, but I am not a financier. No doubt his experts will be able to inform him exactly what is the answer. I am going to take the economics of a four-apartment house. The right hon. Gentleman told the House this afternoon that a four-apartment house cost £430. I am going to take a four-apartment house at a cost of £450. I will be more generous than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leonard: That is the official figure.

Mr. Henderson: You can never believe official figures on a question of housing. The State subsidy under this Bill amounts to £470 for 40 years and the rating subsidy

for 40 years amounts to £190, so that the two subsidies together come to £660 on a £450 house. That is quite simple. The net rental—I take this from the Glasgow Corporation Housing returns—is £30 per annum. In 40 years a tenant will have paid £1,200. That amounts to £1,800 for a £450 house. I want to deduct from that owner's rates at 6s. 3d, in the pound, which would give us £370 or £375. Repairs would be reckoned at £80. Together, that would mean £455 to be deducted from £1,800. That would leave something like £1,350 for a £450 house. Then you deduct the cost of the house, which is £450, and there is left a sum of £900. Where does the £900 go at the end of 40 years? When you cancel out your £450 house you cancel out three houses. I have a rough idea that it is connected with interest, I am not quite sure. What I want the hon. Member to tell the House is, just how that £900 disappears from the calculation. I do not want to keep my hon. Friends any further from debating this Bill, but I shall wait here patiently until the Under-Secretary tells me where the £900 goes.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: During the discussion we had last year on this question the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Scotland declared that housing in Scotland was a disgrace to civilisation. In view of such a statement from the Secretary of State one would have expected that the new Secretary of State when bringing in a Bill at this time would have brought in a comprehensive Measure dealing with the land, with materials, with drains, water and all the rest of it. But, instead of that, we have another makeshift, and in support of this makeshift Member after Member on the other side of the House has urged on us the necessity, not of limiting our attack on this problem but of attacking it from all sides. Yet when we raise the question of attacking it from all sides we get a very hurried retreat by those Members on the other side of the House.
We used to have in the old days of the Socialist movement a very popular slogan—"Rent is robbery; profit is plunder." This could not be applied with more effect than in connection with the particular question that we are discussing to-night. The Member for the Bothwell Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Welsh) has given from


his own experience an account of what is going on when the housing association tries to obtain sites for housing. Members opposite say that we should attack this problem from all sides. All right. Are they prepared to support an attack upon the landlords? Take the land from them so that you can have at any time building sites for any scheme. I can imagine that at the present moment the landlords in Scotland and the people who control building materials in Scotland are going very carefully over this Bill and calculating how much they hope to get from the increased price of land and materials. One of the problems that face the housing authorities in Scotland is the high price of building sites and the high cost of materials of which the houses are built.
There is the question of drainage and of water that has to be taken into consideration. I am not going to deal with the general question of drainage and water, which was dealt with very forcibly by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) from the medical officer's report. There is a village in West Fife, Donibristle, which it is proposed to wipe out of existence. It is a nice little village, although the houses are in a very bad condition. The situation of the village is really a lovely one, and it is altogether an attractive area. Men and women and their families have grown up in this village, which is now to be wiped out because of the absence of drainage. At the present time these people are living in housing conditions which are quite unsuitable. There has been a good deal of talk of obtaining a building site and of drainage, and now they are proposing to build houses in another village three or four miles away and to transfer the people there from this village. There is no proper drainage in the area which can cover such a village as that. Then take the village of Milton of Balgonie, where the people are paying a drainage rate of 11½d. but are getting no drainage. A drainage scheme is under consideration but it has been under consideration for 20 years. Goodness only knows how long it will remain under consideration but the fact remains that in this village they are paying a drainage rate of 11½d. and they have no drainage.
The question of drainage in respect of a Bill dealing with housing is most important.

All these villages could do with new housing schemes, but always they are prevented from getting them because of the question of drainage. There is another village in West Fife, that of Kingseat, above Dunfermline. There is a bit of Kingseat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, and a bit in my constituency. It is in the happy position of being represented by two Members of Parliament, but it has no water during the day. When water is being drawn from the system of Dunfermline none comes up to Kingseat. In the middle of the night when there is no great strain on the power they can get all the water they want, but in the middle of the day there is no water. Such conditions ought to be utterly impossible in a big industrial area like West Fife. In bringing in a comprehensive Bill the land and materials should have been tackled and the question of drainage and water should have found an important place.
The problem of the young married couple has been touched on by several hon. Members. It is a scandalous thing that we should have a Government sitting here year after year with the backing of the greatest majority that any Government has had in modern times and pursuing a policy which has made it impossible for the young married couple to get a new home. There is not an hon. Member opposite who could go to any constituency and justify a policy of that kind. Newly married couples are banned from a new house. That is the policy of the National Government and of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Front Bench opposite. How is it possible that we should have such a situation as that? Surely it should be our concern to give the greatest possible aid and encouragement to newly married couples so that they can start life under the best possible conditions. A comprehensive Bill would have dealt with the housing question as a whole and not just with overcrowding and slum clearance. There are many people affected by the housing problem who do not come in the category of overcrowding and slum clearance, and especially those who are newly married.
Another problem that should have been dealt with in the Bill—I do not know whether the Scottish Office has given any consideration to the matter at all—is the housing of the old folks. Many old folks,


owing to the situation that exists in various areas, are often dependent upon getting accommodation in the way of a room or something from some member of the family. Nothing is being done, as far as the National Government are concerned, to deal with this problem. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, has visited the scheme of the Glasgow Corporation at Crookston. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he or his colleague the Secretary of State has been there? I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman seems quite indifferent to my question. He does not seem to understand that there is a Debate going on. His thoughts appear to be far away, and he seems to be immune from any arguments that may take place in the House.
I am doubtful whether any hon. Member opposite has paid a visit to that scheme of the Glasgow Corporation. It is one of the most valuable experiments that have been made in this country. Every Scottish Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House he sits, ought to make it his business to visit that scheme. It is for old age pensioners from 65 and upwards. The Corporation are building something like 600 houses. Many of them are built. I would like to see similar houses built not only for the old folks, but for the purpose of giving young folks a start during the first year or two of their married life. They have a nice sitting-room and a nice bedroom. There is a fine floor cloth, there are lovely painted walls, there are two beautiful easy chairs, one on each side of the fire. There are a table and other usual amenities, including an electric clock on the mantel piece and an electric radio, a kitchenette with all the most up-to-date cooking arrangements. Above all they have their own door into their own house. At the end of each small lot there is a fine big combination drawing room, reading room, amusement room, with card tables, magazines and the rest of it. Then there is a communal dining-room. They get supplied with the necessary food for making breakfast and tea but the midday meal is communally supplied. They hand over their old age pensions and get two shillings or half-a-crown back for tobacco, or cigarettes or a night at the pictures. The elderly couples have a splendid feeling about this new experiment; they are very happy to be there;

they have a sense of independence and freedom that they never could have under the old conditions. I am certain it would repay any Member of the House to visit and inspect this great experiment, which has only been possible because there has been on the Corporation a Labour majority which has been prepared to make a stand against the old conceptions and to make a break through as far as the old folks are concerned.
I shall say no more as the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) and I have agreed to share the time that remains between us, but I am sorry that the Secretary of State at this stage did not consider the advisability, the importance, the absolute necessity of bringing in a Bill which would have covered the whole question of housing, would have faced up to every problem that arises before local authorities or housing associations, and would have made an effort to overcome these problems in a way which would have assured us housing at the most rapid possible rate. Because he has failed in this I shall with the greatest possible pleasure support the Amendment which if accepted would strengthen the Bill and make it of real value.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: I should like to acknowledge the very generous way in which the hon. Member has honoured the agreement that we entered into and has given me the lion's share of the time available for the two of us. Debates on housing in Scotland will always be important as long as the conditions which have been impartially condemned on both sides persist. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman), in his reference to the presence of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), rather emphasised the traditional characteristic of Scotsmen of being economical. His invitation to the hon. Member was to attend and listen. When we Members from Scotland are able to get more Parliamentary time, even the hon. Member for Rutherglen will, I am sure, extend his invitation and make it one to take part in the Debate as well as to listen. The sins of this Bill, everyone seems to be agreed, are sins of omission, and to that extent in substance most of the speeches to which I have listened have been in support of the Amendment.
The Amendment welcomes the Bill, but it condemns it with faint praise and points


out its shortcomings very emphatically. While the hon. Member for Rutherglen was very ready to bestow encomiums on the private enterprise system of building houses, he was very quickly pulled up, partly by interruptions and partly by the very able contribution to the Debate made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). That part of the Debate was illumined in the most interesting fashion as the result of an interpolation by the Secretary of State in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who had an excellent opportunity, of which he took very full advantage, of expounding the advantages of Socialism from the point of view of service. The service of the country, either nationally or locally, is esteemed by workers of all grades both for the steadiness of the emoluments and for the essential dignity of the position. In the torpedo factory at Greenock there are two grades of workers. There are the established and the non-established men. The established men get a lower rate of remuneration, but their employment is assured, and it is that assurance of steady employment which makes their position a more desirable one than that of those whose remuneration is higher but is less assured. We have available a good deal of labour for building purposes, and the need for corporation building becomes more and more urgent as our building schemes go on, because even this Government is anxious at all times to encourage local authorities to proceed with building schemes at their own hand.
I want to devote the time at my disposal chiefly to consideration of the suggestion that there ought to be provision for local authorities, where they find it desirable, to purchase and reconstruct suitable houses. That allows a very wide discretion to local authorities, and the type of house that they would naturally select is the old house that is falling into disrepair, and is in danger of becoming derelict, but has a fabric which is sound and substantial and is valuable if reconstructed. When one considers such fabrics in relation to modern brick-built houses one recalls the well-known words of Burns in his poem on the Brigs of Ayr, when he figures the old brig saying to the new brig:
I'll be a brig when ye're a shapeless cairn.

The fabric is sound, and it may be made the basis of a new erection. Another advantage of reconstructing these houses is that they are often near the places of work in the towns, and consequently when they are reconstructed the tenants are not subject to the transport charges that have to be borne by tenants of new houses on the outskirts of a town or city. Again, when we are considering questions of this sort we might well, and with advantage, make the consideration topical. We are living in the face of possible crises. These old fabrics of houses in Scotland are very strongly built and are able to withstand the shock of explosion from bombs very much better than are modern brick buildings. From that point of view, therefore, it is to the national advantage that these fabrics should be retained and the houses reconstructed.
Reconstruction follows an historical process. Every civilisation is built on the ruins of and from the ruins of a pre-existing civilisation. The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) in his discussion of that topic went back some distance. We can go back a good deal further. The excavations of the City of Troy indicated a number of civilisations one on top of another. In our ruined border abbeys we see a similar phenomenon. We know that Kelso Abbey site has been used as a quarry for the building of houses in the modern town of Kelso. Later, only one stone was allowed from Kelso Abbey for each house, and finally the taking of the stones was prohibited. In the neighbouring Abbey of Jedburgh one can find a stone in a winding stairway the underside of which contains a Roman inscription, showing that it was taken from an old Roman camp a few miles away. Every single civilisation of which we have record in our island has some relation to a pre-existing state of affairs. Hadrian's Wall was used as a quarry at either end—Carlisle and Newcastle—and the whole thing would have gone had it not been taken out of the hands of relatively modern vandals.
The hon. Member for Gorbals, when he was dealing with this matter of new houses, was not, if I may say so, as felicitous as he usually is in the illustration he drew. He said that doctors were always wanting new cars. Doctors and other people who have means at their disposal are not always wanting to move


into new houses, but they do want to move into a house which is up-to-date, and which will provide them with suitable accommodation for a much longer time to come than they have in mind when purchasing a new motor car. He rather suggested to me the story of the engineer who was in the habit of flitting into a new house every time that May, the removal term in Scotland, came along. He was unmercifully chaffed by his fellow-workers, and at length he got out of his characteristic reserve and said, in self-defence, "It is not me; it is the wife." In defence of his better half he added: "She has us all well trained. Even the hens when they hear the removal wagon coming round the corner turn on their backs and hold up their legs to be tied." That is not the position of the households of doctors, as I know them.
In order to make the best use of our resources we must reconstruct the houses that re in danger of becoming derelict. I would ask the Under-Secretary what is the alternative? These houses will become ruins, and ruins become dangerous. I have pointed out before, as emphatically as I could, and I would repeat it to-night, that there is great danger in our failure to reconstruct these houses. When a house is getting into a bad condition in Scotland, on account of our rating system, there is a strong temptation to take the roof off. Then the door becomes ruinous and it and the windows soon become open spaces, and children go in. Stones become loose, and it is a fact that where such ruined buildings are near schools there is a serious danger of children going in and bringing out these loose stones on to the footpath and the carriage way, where they become dangerous obstacles for passing traffic. It happens from time to time that cyclists meet these obstacles at night and are thrown from their cycles in front of oncoming motor vehicles, with the result that serious accidents take place.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary that here is an opportunity to deal with that particular danger arising from derelict houses that might well be reconditioned. In the event of their not being reconditioned, I suggest that the local authority should have power to compel the owners to put them into a safe condition, so that children cannot go into these ruined premises and bring out bricks and stones to the danger of other people. I do not

desire to detain the House longer, but I hope that the Government will take note of the Amendment and get a bigger and more enthusiastic move on towards the removal of the conditions of housing in Scotland which we all deplore.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: The outstanding feature of the Debate which is now nearing its end has been the fact that whilst every hon. Member who has spoken from either side of the House has welcomed the crumbs which have fallen from the Treasury table, every one, irrespective of Party, has expressed dissatisfaction with such an incomprehensive Bill, a Bill which does not seek to face up to the real requirements in housing so far as Scotland is concerned. At the opening of the Debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that this is a Housing Bill, and not a water or drainage Bill. I am wondering how he can justify any attempt effectively to deal with the problem of housing in Scotland, particularly in the rural areas, unless he is prepared, in a proposal for housing, to make proposals for the provision of water and drainage. Ever since 1934 he has been supplied with report after report from the County Councils Association and from Departmental Committees that have been set up, giving adequate evidence to prove that you can never solve nor even effectively deal with the problem of housing in Scotland, particularly in the rural areas, unless you deal with the problem of water and drainage.
We have been told that, despite the efforts that have been made by every Government that has been in office, particularly since 1922, Scotland still requires at least a quarter of a million houses. From my practical knowledge of this particular problem, I suggest that that figure is nothing like the figure that will be required before we adequately house our people in accordance with a decent standard of modem housing. We have been told that one house out of five is either unfit or overcrowded and that one person out of four in Scotland is either badly housed or underhoused owing to the conditions which prevail. We have also been told of the steep rise in costs, which has meant an average rise of approximately £147 per house since 1935. The point I want to make is that no one in this House is entitled to credit the Treasury with being generous. I am


satisfied that the present Secretary of State has put up quite a good fight, but he has been beaten by the Treasury, for no one who examines the financial arrangements of this Bill can say that the Treasury have been generous. The best that can be said is that the Secretary of State may have put up a good fight and has tried to get a semblance of justice so far as a housing subsidy for Scotland is concerned.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was not keen about the reconditioning proposals suggested in our Amendment. In our view there is a difference between reconditioning and reconstructing. In our Amendment the word "reconditioning" does not appear. We use the word "reconstruct," and we believe there is a difference betwen reconstruction as we interpret it and reconditioning as it applies under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) said that so far as Scotland is concerned it is more than possible that the regional system is one of the main causes for the disastrous lag in housing as compared with England. If that is so, then the Government stand condemned in view of an answer I received to-day. I put a question, which was answered by the Prime Minister, asking whether it was possible to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the problems of local government and rating as they apply to Scotland, and the answer I received was that the Government were not prepared to set up such a Commission.
May I now ask the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to set up a Departmental Committee? He has the power, whereas a Royal Commission is a matter entirely for His Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Therefore I put this straight question to the Secretary of State. He knows that there is a growing volume of opinion in Scotland which blames the lag in housing partly to the rating system. I do not propose to say whether I agree or not, but surely if there is a volume of opinion which takes this view the best way to face the problem is to set up a Departmental Committee which can inquire into all the facts and make recommendations. From the Government side there is the charge that the system of rating is partly to blame, but in my view the problem of

rating is not solely one of saying whether the rates shall be divided between landlord and tenant. There is also the problem of the taxation of land values and the question whether it is possible to help housing by a direct Income Tax for local government purposes. These are all problems which could be well considered preferably by a Royal Commission but certainly by a Departmental Committee so far as rating and local government are concerned.
Why have we placed our Amendment on the Order Paper? There are five reasons why we criticise the Bill. We are willing to accept the crumbs which fall from the Treasury table but we are not thankful; we want the loaf before we shall be satisfied, when dealing with the housing problem. These are the five reasons why we criticise the Bill: In the first place, it does not make provision for dealing with land purchase; secondly, it does not make any provision for assisting local authorities in the provision of water and drainage schemes; thirdly, it does not make any provision for assistance in the provision of community centres; fourthly, it does not give guarantees for the continuity of grants to local authorities, or of work to the industry; and, fifthly, it does increase—this is the positive side—the burdens which will fall on local shoulders.
Let me take first the point that the Bill makes no provision for dealing with land purchase. I will give a typical illustration of what happens in the problem of housing in Scotland. As local authorities acquire tracts of land for the purpose of meeting the demand for municipal houses, under our existing land purchase system they increase the cost of the next parcel of land they have to buy, and it is a fact that to-day, where we have agreed to arbitration proceedings for the acquisition of land, we are compelled to select as arbiters men who are engaged in private practice and who, although accepted by the local authority to-day to settle the price of land for them, may be arbiters for the same landowner to-morrow in determining the price that we have to accept. Consequently, we are not doing justice in dealing with the acquisition of land. A question was put on 21st June this year by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) dealing with the acquisition of land. It


was with reference to the purchase of 67 acres of land for housing in Kirkcaldy. My hon. Friend wanted to know the price of the land, the rental of the land, and its assessable value. The answer given by the Secretary of State was that the 67 acres—and we had to go to arbitration on the matter—cost £13,270. We were also told that its rateable value was £17 15s. per year, and that its rental was £156 0s. 10d. Therefore, the moment we wanted to acquire this land for housing purposes we were compelled to pay 85 times its rental and 748 times its valuation.
That is not the end of the story. We wanted then to acquire Overton Park, and we asked the valuer of the Department to give a value in connection with it. I will not say what that value was, arid I do not know whether even the Provost of the burgh knows the figure placed on that land by the valuer, but I can say that because of our purchase of adiacent tracts of land, the valuer of the Department put the price far in excess of that which had been paid for the adjacent land, which was better building land. My point is that in any Housing Bill in which State and rate money is involved, we ought to see that we are placed in a fair position in regard to the purchase of land. The only way of doing that would be to appoint one or two individuals fully engaged by the State, or, if that were not accepted by the Government, there would be no reason why one or other of the judges in Scotland should not be set aside for the purpose of dealing with this question of arbitration so that private interests would never come in conflict in connection with the purchase of land for housing purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State may rest assured that until he is willing to set up something similar to that which I have suggested, there will he grave dissatisfaction among the local authorities in Scotland who are responsible for the purchase of land.
My second point is that no provision, is made for water and drainage schemes. Let us consider what has been said by the committees that have submitted reports to the Secretary of State on this matter. There was a report issued last year in connection with rural housing in Scotland. The committee which issued it was a very representative one, it did its work expeditiously and well in the

best interests of the State, and it tried to give the best possible advice to the Secretary of State. After most exhaustive evidence had been submitted by the County Councils Association, the report was issued, and on page 24, paragraphs 48 and 49, it is stated:
We have no doubt that the improvement of housing conditions in rural areas is being hindered through the want of water supplies, and we strongly recommend that the Department of Health should initiate measures at the earliest possible moment to bring about as far as possible the regional control and development of such supplies.
The committee stated further:
We are satisfied that general Exchequer grants are necessary.
In paragraph 49, they stated:
In our view the question of drainage in rural areas is closely bound up with that of housing.
That is not the end of the recommendations that were made with regard to this problem. The County Councils Association carried out a most exhaustive inquiry among their constituent bodies with a view to discovering the position with regard to rural water supplies. On 21st February of this year, they submitted a memorandum to the Secretary of State, saying:
The association is deeply disappointed that although two years have elapsed since the presentation of the above-mentioned Memorial, nothing has been done by the Governnment in the way of providing further financial assistance.
They went on to say:
The expansion of housing and the increasing demand for water for dairy and industrial purposes, etc., renders the need for proper water supplies in rural areas more clamant than ever.
In view of the fact that no hon. Member has attempted to refute the recommendation that Exchequer grants are necessary for the purpose of dealing with drainage and water supplies—indeed, that demand has been backed up from all sides of the House—we have no apology to make for the reasoned Amendment on the Order Paper. It is true that, in 1934, under the Rural Water Supplies Act, there was provided a grant of £137,500 for Scotland, but that was inadequate, and it has already been used up. Even the fringe of the problem has not been touched, and there is need for something to be done now. I would remind hon. Members that very few county councils in Scotland have a majority of Labour and Socialist


representatives; in the main, they are supporters of the Government. Yet this is what the County Councils Association said:
It seems inconsistent that the Government should give 100 per cent. grants for roads and substantial grants for transport developments and also grants to encourage housing, and yet should deny aedquate financial assistance to essential requirements of public health, such as water and drainage schemes.
They also said:
The introduction of adequate water supplies in rural villages and areas must necessarily be followed in many cases and over considerable areas by drainage schemes. Without extraneous aid such schemes cannot be carried out except at costs beyond the capacity of the inhabitants of these areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) quoted the position as it affects Angus, Argyll, Ayr, Berwick, Inverness and Peebles, but he did not give the whole story. He said that he was merely quoting some of the cases of inadequate water supplies and drainage. I want to supplement those cases. Let us consider what is said by the county councils. Reference has already been made to Aberdeenshire. They said:
We have several areas where there is difficulty owing to a shortage of supply [of water]. At the north end of the county there is a marked shortage of water for all purposes, including agriculture, but this problem could be solved, it is believed, only by the provision of a large regional scheme.
To the best of my knowledge, only one conference has been convened for the purpose of dealing with the problem of regionalisation. I admit that that conference was not very successful, because far too many of the small local authorities took too much of a "parish-pump" view and did not look at the problem of regional water supplies from the national point of view. We find that the county clerk of Berwick reported to the County Councils Association in the following terms:
I have seen the Department more than once, phoned them more than once, and written them more than once, and I still await a definite reply on all the points. We intend to put up one or two houses in the villages in question, and, of course, these are being held up also.
They could not go on with their housing in the rural areas without that for which we ask in the Amendment. It may be of

interest to the House to know that the county clerk of Dumfrieshire reported:
My council have definitely refused to commence the erection of houses or to insist upon improvement of houses in that area until assured that adequate water supplies will he available by the time the new houses or the improvements of houses will be completed.
He went on to say:
Water supply is so intimately bound up with housing that it is difficult to appreciate why the grant to Scotland in aid of rural water supplies should be restricted to 11/80ths of what England receives. There is no such restriction of the grants in respect of housing in Scotland.''
I think that is a very good point. I now come to the county in which I live, and again I propose to supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline. This is what the county clerk of Fife says:
It is in the landward part of the district that water shortage is most acutely felt. The bulk of the rural population still depends for water supply on wells, springs, and burns, primitive sources of supply unprotected, for the most part, from contamination. Every drop of water has to be carried, often for the best part of a mile, in fair weather and in foul.
I may remark that it is the womenfolk who have to do this carrying. It is very seldom the men who carry the water for these long distances. He goes on to state:
Children educated in schools in the necessity for habits of cleanliness return home to houses where sinks, water-closets and a sufficiency of hot water are unknown.
That is in the county of Fife, a county which, in some respects, has made good progress. They were pioneers in Fife in connection with education and I believe, that, in some respects, they were pioneers in housing in some parts of the county. But there are parts where, no matter how desirous they are of being pioneers, they cannot be pioneers until they have been provided with adequate financial assistance to deal with these problems of water supply and drainage. There is the further point of health. What is the use of building houses unless you have a water supply and drainage? Arid when this House is dealing, as it will be dealing next week, with the problem of milk supply, let hon. Members note what is said in the report submitted to the County Councils Association:
Many dairy farmers are adversely affected by a lack of sufficient water supply. A pure and ample water supply is essential


for the maintenance of the standard of cleanliness on which the safety of the milk supply rests. … For example, a keen dairy farmer with excellent premises at Kingsbarns who is on the county list of accredited clean milk producers regularly fails to produce during the summer months, a milk of the requisite standard of bacteriological purity for the sole reason that there is insufficient water even to work his milk coolers.
That is a condemnation of the Government's action in bringing in a Bill which, as regards the rural areas, does not provide the necessary financial assistance to enable them to deal with those problems. My third point is that the Bill does not make any provision for assistance in the provision of community centres. It is not good enough to build houses for the working class. People cannot live by bread alone. They must have some of the ordinary amenities of so-called civilised life provided for them. I asked for a return of the number of authorities who had taken advantage of the power which they possess to provide community centres. I know that my own town is quoted as one of those which is going to make such provision, but they have not made it because their housing position will not allow them to spend the money. I understand there is a likelihood that they will not go on with the community centre project, because the finance provided by the Government, which is merely the unit grant, or the grant dealing with overcrowding, makes no provision for community centres. This Bill, while giving additional financial assistance to local authorities for the building of houses, still makes no provision for community centres.
My fourth complaint against the Bill is that it does not give a guarantee of continuity of grants to the authorities. We find the same thing in every Bill dealing with housing. The grants contained in a Bill are guaranteed for only three years and near the end of the three-year period, we always find grit getting into the wheels of the local authority machinery for the provision of houses. There is always a lag. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been almost 19,000 houses this year. It will be interesting to know the number approved for grant next year. I think there will be a lag, because housing authorities have been waiting to know what financial assistance was being granted to them. I know that authorities have been waiting

to know exactly what the grant would be. Would it not be better, having come to the decision that the grants in this Bill are required, to have said to the local authorities, "We shall let you go ahead for 10 years"? The local authorities would then have known where they stood. They would have made their arrangements accordingly, and they could have dealt with their problems, not within the limit of three years but for a longer period. But while you have this limitation then, at the end of the three-year period, you are sure to get a lag in housing.
My last point is that the Bill increases the burden upon the local authorities. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that under the Bill, instead of the grants that are paid at present, there will be a £10 10s. grant for three-apartment or two-apartment houses, £11 15s. for four-apartment houses, and £13 for five-apartment houses. In theory that looks all right. The Treasury hand out a little assistance with a ladle, and then they hit the local authorities on the head with the ladle by applying the conditions as regards rate contribution. What is the maximum grant under the existing system for four-apartment houses? I am taking four-apartment houses to illustrate my point.
Suppose a local authority is building four four-apartment houses, one of which is allocated to the 1930 Act and that they are able to put the necessary seven units in that particular house. They are then building three four-apartment houses and allocating them to the overcrowding Act of 1935. They will receive under the 1930 Act for the one house £17 10s., based on a unit grant of £2 10s., and they will receive three times £6 15s. for the three four-apartment houses, a total State grant of £38 15s. It is true that, under the new proposals, for the same four houses they will receive £47, based on that £11 15s. now to be paid, always providing that my arithmetic is correct. That means an increase from State funds for these four houses of £8 5s., but under the rate contribution provisions for these four houses they have to pay £4 10s. for the 1930 Act houses and £3 5s. for the three four-apartment houses allocated to the 1935 Act, so that the rate charge to the ratepayers for these four houses is £14 5s. to start with. But this is only


the beginning of the story. The rate charge is to be £19, an increase of £4 15s. to the ratepayers' burden, but it does not stop there. That increase is only limited until 1942. To-day, if you build a four-apartment house under the 1935 Act the rate contribution is £3 5s., but in 1942 under this Bill the rate contribution for the £13 State contribution will actually be £6 10s.; in other words, you are making the local authorities, everything else remaining the same, pay for one house the rate contribution which they pay for two houses at the present time.
It does not end there. The Secretary of State said that I knew something about State and rate contributions so far as the hostels are concerned. I admit that I do, and it was all to the advantage of the local authorities, but now let us see what is going to happen. Under the 1930 Act, if we built a hostel of 16 units, we got £3 15s. per unit in return for a rate contribution of £4 l0s. What is to be the new contribution? The Secretary of State has told us that we shall get a unit grant per room in the hostel of £5 l0s., but it is also laid down in the Bill that the rate contribution has to be half the State contribution, so that in regard to the hostels which we started building in Kirkcaldy on the assumption that we would get, I think it was, £44 from the State, or £60, under the new provisions we have been badly taken in, because now we shall be asked to receive a State contribution of £88, but in place of a rate contribution of £4 10s. we shall be asked to provide £44; in other words. while the State contribution is to be increased, I think it is by £36, the rate contribution is to be increased by £39 l0s.,[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the percentage?"] I will not go into the percentage; it is so staggering that I am sure the Secretary of State will never again be asking us to look a gift horse in the mouth. I think I have heard of a famous wooden horse which was supposed to be a splendid gift, but it turned out to be anything but a splendid gift. I think it was called the Trojan horse. I am inclined to think this is a horse of that kind. We have examined its teeth, and its teeth bite, so far as the local authorities are concerned. It will not help us in dealing with this problem.
Is there any reason against the State contribution being increased and leaving

the rate contribution as it is, if you are to enable the local authorities to deal with this problem effectively? In the rural areas it is going to be a tragedy. We all know that the rateable value per head in, say, Caithness, is only about £3 15s. We know areas where a penny rate brings in less than £100. We even have housing authorities where a penny rate brings in less than £30. It will be almost impossible for some of these authorities to face this problem. I suggest that I have proved that this gift horse ought to have been looked more carefully in the mouth before the Secretary of State recommended it to the House. In our Amendment we regret
that no provision is made for grants in aid to local authorities who find it desirable to purchase and reconstruct suitable house property in cases approved by the Department of Health, and further regrets that no grants in aid are provided for improving water supplies and drainage, without which any comprehensive drive for better housing in many areas in Scotland is virtually impossible.
We are not suggesting grants in aid for reconditioning, which presupposes that the house is in an unfit condition and must be reconditioned. We are suggesting assistance to local authorities in acquiring suitable good property which at very little cost could be reconstructed on modern lines. We have the power to-day to acquire such property. As a convenor of housing in one of our large burghs I convinced the local authority that it was good policy. They acquired three blocks of four houses on the recommendations of our burgh surveyor, who is responsible for reporting to us on the standard of housing. He satisfied us that the building was first-class property. It was typical of the kind we find in the large burghs in Scotland—two-apartment houses downstairs, with a close running between, and upstairs two- and three-apartment houses. They are well constructed, first-class houses which people used to struggle to get into, but they have not modern conveniences.
With little cost it would be possible to modernise the building by making the entrance from the close instead of from the main street and to turn the entrance from the street into lavatory accommodation by the use of modern equipment; then at little cost it would be possible to put in a hot water supply and a small bath. In that way that type of apartment house could be made a modern


house better in many respects than the houses we are building to-day. It would enable not merely newly married couplies, but aged people for whom it is a problem to provide houses to live under modern conditions. Even if the Government will not accept the Amendment, there seems to be no reason why they should not extend the powers of the Housing Association which they propose to set up to enable it to purchase property of that kind. Carry through the experiment, see how it will work and then, if it be a success, the local authorities can benefit by it. Neither I nor my right hon. Friends whose names are attached to this Amendment plead for derelict property which ought to be destroyed. I am pleading for the well-constructed type of property which at very little cost could be reconstructed on modern lines. I trust that the House will accept the Amendment, and that even if the Government cannot accept it at the moment they will consider the suggestions I have made, first for an independent individual to deal with land purchases, and, secondly, for extended powers to be given to the new housing association to enable them to carry through experiments which I believe would be a success.

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) both appeared to assume that my right hon. Friend is in agreement with their proposals to furnish State grants for the improvement of water supplies and drainage and for the reconstruction of good property which may be purchased for that purpose by local authorities, and they have suggested that my right hon. Friend's benevolent endeavours have been frustrated only by the parsimony of the Exchequer. I do not think it would be useful for me to argue that point with the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, I am not particularly disposed to engage in any controversy with him about the intrinsic merits of the proposals which are detailed in his Amendment. I think it is only my duty to lay before him the facts as clearly as I can. In regard to the provision of grants for water supplies it is, of course, well known, and has been obvious for a long time, that a number

of local authorities, particularly those in the more remote rural districts, have experienced difficulty with housing schemes, and in some cases have been unable to proceed with them at all because they were unable to obtain a pipe water supply, and they have long ago made representation to the Government to that effect.
I dealt with this subject four months ago, when it was discussed in the Debate on the Estimates, and I told the House then that my right hon. Friend's predecessor last May had asked the local authorities to furnish him with information showing what they required in the way of water supplies, what was the existing rateable value of the areas in which they wanted those water supplies to be installed, and what the total cost of their demands would be. I said then that I thought it right to warn the House that the installation of large regional water supply schemes might be exceedingly expensive, and that the cost of such proposals would have to judged, like the cost of everything else, in relation to other items of expenditure and in relation to what the country could afford.
I therefore did not wish the House to assume, from the fact that these inquiries were going on, that the Government would be in any way committed to bringing forward an expensive scheme of the kind that might be proposed. The inquiry into the estimated means of the local authorities and the estimated cost has not yet been completed, and we have not yet received any information from the local authorities. I could not add anything to what I said in the Debate on the Estimates, but if it were possible for the Government to make any proposals on a subject of that sort I do not think that they could be included in a Housing Bill.
While we acknowledge, as everybody does, that the provision of water supplies in rural areas is very closely connected with the problem of housing, we must agree that it is connected also with other matters and with the health services in general. Probably the rating system might also arise in connection with it. At present, water rates are levied in all districts on every occupier and owner in those districts, whether they benefit from those schemes or not, but if schemes were introduced on a large scale we should have


to consider whether it would not be more equitable to charge the consumers of that water on the basis of what they receive and not to charge the ratepayers who did not receive any water from that scheme. I do not think that whatever were done in this matter would be properly included in this Bill.
On the question of reconditioning I acknowledge that there is a strong case in its favour. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) pointed out there are considerable quantities of old houses of the most solid and durable nature in Scotland which will last a very great deal longer than some of the new houses that are being put up now, and many of them are capable of being brought into accordance with modern requirements. The strongest reason in favour of reconditioning is that large numbers of working-class families are living in houses which are not likely to be condemned as unfit and which are not overcrowded. They are perfectly habitable. Such families have no chance of getting into new accommodation in any of the new houses built under the overcrowding schemes, and they are apt to wonder why they should not be moved into modern houses where they will be able to enjoy a bathroom, a lavatory and a modern type of kitchen. They are families whose housing conditions are not bad enough for the people to be moved and they must continue to live in worse conditions than those of their neighbours who are being removed from the slums
The arguments against reconditioning at this moment I think are two. First, there is the question of labour. In a new housing scheme it generally works out that about one unskilled man is employed to every two skilled men, but on the work of renovating old houses the proportion is very different. It works out at about three skilled men to about three-quarters of one unskilled man, so that the proportion of skilled labour engaged in the work of reconstruction is very much greater than in the case of new building. It is calculated that, on the work of renovation, about 500 skilled workmen would be engaged upon work which it would take 1,000 men to do on new building, so, that if skilled labour is diverted to that purpose, it means withdrawing it from the work of new building to that extent, and

we know that one of the main difficulties in solving our housing problem in Scotland at the present moment is the shortage of skilled labour. By encouraging a large quantity of reconstruction work, that shortage of skilled labour would be made more acute.
The other argument is this. In the country, when you have to reconstruct an isolated cottage, all that you have to do is to build on an additional room, together with a bathroom and scullery, to enlarge the windows and to make various interior improvements. You do not thereby reduce the total number of houses. But in an urban area, in a street of tenements or houses close together, where there is no space to expand and build on new rooms, you will probably have to convert one and two-roomed houses into three and four-roomed houses, and additional rooms will have to be converted into bathrooms and lavatories. In that way a block of 200 houses might perhaps be converted into 100 or 120 renovated houses. That would be a most excellent thing for the inhabitants, but it would mean a loss of 80 houses, and another 80 new houses would have to be built to provide for the families displaced.

Mr. Westwood: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that would apply in the case which I put—a typical case in connection with Scottish housing—where there were two two-apartment houses downstairs and two three-apartment houses upstairs, and where it is possible, without reducing the number of houses to introduce a hot water supply, a lavatory and a second bathroom while still retaining the same number of houses?

Mr. Wedderburn: If it would not reduce the number of houses, what I have said would not apply, but I think that, in general, to carry out urban reconditioning on a large scale would certainly tend to reduce the number of houses now available, and so accentuate the existing housing shortage. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), whom we are all glad to see back in the House after his recent illness, produced a Biblical illustration in favour of his case for reconditioning, namely, that we ought not to remove our old landmarks. He will remember that it is also prescribed in the Bible that we should not put new wine into old bottles, and I think that perhaps that objection might apply to a great many of


the reconditioning proposals that might arise out of the suggestions contained in the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk gave five reasons for not being very enthusiastic about the Bill. He referred to certain difficulties about land purchase, which I should be very glad to go into further, though I think that in general in Scotland there is no difficulty about acquiring the necessary sites for very much extended housing progress. I shall be very grateful for any assistance that the hon. Gentleman can give me in regard to any particular cases such as he has mentioned. The hon. Member then complained that there was no special provision for the establishment of community centres, an object which we all wish to see encouraged. He then said there was no continuity in this scheme; although I think there never has been any Housing Bill so far in which the subsidy has not been limited to a period of a few years and then been subject to review. He finally argued that it would increase the burden on local authorities; although, as a matter of fact, the local authorities of Scotland have joyfully accepted the financial provisions of this Bill. He claimed that they had been deceived, and compared the proposals of the Bill to the Trojan horse, putting himself in the place of Laocoon.

Equo ne credite, Teucri,

Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

I hope he will remember the retribution which immediately overtook Laocoon. After he uttered this warning he and his sons were seized upon and devoured by two enormous serpents. But in this case the Trojans have been examining not only the teeth, but also the entrails of the horse, for the last six months, while the hon. Member has only been able to examine it for the last few days.

Mr. Westwood: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the county councils are not satisfied, and that they have sent on to me new proposals for amendment of the details of the Bill?

Mr. Wedderburn: If the local authorities of Scotland were satisfied with the financial details of any Bill it would indeed be a miracle. But I think their objections are confined to one or two relatively minor points. While I appreciate

all these five points which the hon. Gentleman has submitted, I think the real problem we have to consider is that of how to get a very largely increased total output of houses in Scotland.
If I may say so, I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) went to the root of this problem. He told us that he has been in this House 16 years, and that, after all those years, he has come to regard the housing problem with despair, feeling that, in spite of all the efforts which he and others have made during that period, we are actually slipping downhill. I have been in the House for only seven years—less than half as long as the hon. Member—and I know that many of my hon. Friends will agree with me that we have often entertained the same sentiments, if not of despair, at least of impatience, not perhaps at the actual magnitude of our achievement compared with what has been done in the past, but at the slowness of its development compared to what we wish to aim at in the future. To put the matter in its right proportion, if we take the period from the end of the War until 1931, during that time about 130,000 houses have been built in Scotland, while since then 166,000 housts have been built in Scotland. That means a very substantial increase in the annual output. That includes private enterprise houses, and only about half of them are for working-class occupation; so let me take the subsidised local authority houses, which have been built for the special occupation of the lower-paid wage-earners. Until 1931 the total built by local authorities with the aid of State subsidies amounted to 89,000; since 1931 it has amounted to 110,000.
The greatest contrast is that which applies to slum clearance. During the whole period from 1919 to the end of 1931 only 12,000 houses were built to rehouse persons who were removed from unfit dwellings. Since 1931 under the Slum Clearance Act the numbers of families removed from unfit dwellings has amounted to 55,000. I think that that is an achievement, which, although it does not solve the whole problem, is one which is very remarkable, and if I share, as I do, the hon. Member's dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs, my dissatisfaction is not as the result of comparison with the past; it is only in relation to our aspirations


for the future. My right hon. Friend has already indicated what the extent of those aspirations ought to be—the erection of another 250,000 houses in order entirely to abolish slums and overcrowding in Scotland. We indicated on the Estimates last summer that, in order to achieve that result in a reasonable period of time, we would have to build 35,000 houses a year, whereas in the present year, which I hope will prove to be a record, the total number likely to be completed is only something like 19,000 houses.
The hon. Gentleman was speaking mainly for Glasgow, and I think he was right as far as Glasgow is concerned in claiming that they were not keeping pace with the normal wastage. In Glasgow they ought to build four or five times as many as they are building now. But in relation to Scotland as a whole I think I can be a little more optimistic. We are rapidly outstripping the normal wastage. But in order to finish what we want to do in the next seven or eight years we will have to double our existing programme. What are the obstacles in the way of doing it? The hon. Member for Gorbals said he was doubtful whether we were right in attributing the difficulty of accelerating our programme to a shortage of building labour, and he gave the present figure of 77 unemployed bricklayers in Scotland. The total number of bricklayers in Scotland is about 5,300, and 77 is a little more than 1 per cent. of that. Nearly all of them are unemployed because they are in the normal process of moving from one job to another. It is really a refusal to face the facts of the situation to say that there is a sufficiency of building labour to do what we want by normal methods of construction.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox (St. Leonard) told me that we ought to put the whole situation before the building trade and point out to them that the problem was one not only of slum clearance and overcrowding, but of housing of every kind. That is exactly what we did two years ago. In November, 1936, we put these considerations before the building trade, and as a result of seven or eight months of constant negotiations, they agreed to make certain relaxations in their rules in regard to apprentices and to overtime, with the result that the labour

shortage is now slightly eased. I was glad to hear the interjection of the lion. Member for Woolwich on this point and I should like to say how anxious we are to have the co-operation and help of those whom he represents in solving our problem. But in order to double the existing output of houses, we should have to increase the number of bricklayers from 5,000 to 9,000. Is there anyone who would think it possible or reasonable that the trade unions should agree to such an immense dilution as that?
It is for that reason that we have for more than a year now been seeking to encourage the building of houses by alternative methods of construction, principally poured concrete and timber. It is only natural that local authorities should be inclined to be cautious, conservative, and perhaps even timid, in experimenting with unfamiliar methods of construction, but I am glad to say that some of the more enterprising local authorities have already decided on 4,000 houses by these alternative methods. One, Dundee, has given an order for 500 timber houses. We hope to encourage and advertise these alternative methods, largely by direct Government action. The existing Special Areas Association has already decided upon nearly 5,000 houses, partly of timber and partly of concrete. I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh) who is a Member of that association. My right hon. Friend has taken note of his complaint that, owing to the obstruction of various persons, partly local authorities and partly others, the Special Areas Company has found difficulty in acquiring sites compulsorily. Under the Special Areas Act I think the Commissioner has power to obtain land compulsorily for any purpose that falls within the scope of the Act. He is now actively considering whether he ought to use his powers for that purpose. In any case my right hon. Friend will sympathetically examine the matter to see whether any legislative action is necessary.
Under this Bill the Special Areas Housing Association is expanded into a body whose scope and magnitude of operations will be greatly increased. In the Special Areas they will be empowered to build an additional 20,000 houses. Outside the Special Areas they are empowered to build houses for the purpose of demonstration


and, in order that the housing schemes which they erect outside the Special Areas may be sufficiently conspicuous not to escape notice, the number that has been allocated to that purpose is 8,500. If you take this quantity of 28,500 houses and add it to the 5,000 which have already been decided on by the old association, you get a total of 33,500 houses being built entirely at the expense of the Exchequer without any burden at all on local authorities. That, I think, is a substantial contribution by the Government, at a time when we hear much of the necessity of economy in all kinds of directions, directed to the solution of the housing problem, for that total of 33,500 houses represents something like one-seventh of our total need.
But let me add that the purpose of this Bill will he frustrated if it is thought that the building of these houses by the Government, financed by the Government, is intended to relieve the ordinary housing authorities from any kind of work which they would otherwise have done themselves. The contribution which the Government are making is intended to be not a substitute for what ought to be done by the local authorities but an additional supplementation of the maximum achievements which they are able to perform.
Look at the figures in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. In the next three and three-quarter years 101,000 houses are estimated to be built. If you subtract from that figure the numbers that are being built by the association, you are left with only about 71,000 for the local authorities. That is not a very much higher figure than they are building now. It is no use putting an estimate in a Bill which is too sanguine, unless you have some solid reason to suppose that it will be fulfilled. But I would not wish it to be thought that the estimate in the explanatory memorandum represents the greatest achievements which we believe to be possible within the next three and three-quarter years.
We have the machinery for increasing the supply of bricklaying labour. If that is insufficient, as it certainly will be, we shall have immense potential sources of supply for concrete and timber houses. If those supplies in this country are not sufficient, there are supplies in Sweden which can be drawn upon to an enormous and unlimited extent. In most places sites are easily available and credit is

abundant. I can see no obstacle to a very great acceleration of the programme that is foreshadowed in this estimate, unless it be some lack of will on the part of those who are responsible for housing, or on the part of public opinion, on whose intensity matters of this kind very often depend. If public opinion demands a national register or some other method for organising a great national effort to protect ourselves against the grave but uncertain dangers of war, I wish it were possible to organise an equally great national effort against the existing evils of peace, which are not hypothetical.
If you have to live with a large family in one or two filthy and dilapidated apartments, infested by vermin, that may not seem so sensational as the prospect of an air raid, but the mental agony which must result from it is something that can only be dulled by custom, and can never be wholly absent. If we reflect upon the deaths and the loss of health that must result from these conditions, then we must realise that they are fully comparable to the loss of life and disablement that would result from all the air raids in a major war. Only last night the House of Commons expressed the sympathy of the British public for those foreign victims of racial persecution who are now being deprived of their human rights, and to whom we wish to afford some practical assistance. I hope that every section of opinion in this country—the Government, the local authorities, all the building trades, and public opinion in general, will have no less sympathy and no less practical desire to help an even greater number of our own people in Scotland, who are not being discriminated against on account of their race, who are not robbed by authority of wealth which they do not possess or excluded from places of public entertainment which they cannot afford to attend, but who are compelled to live year after year in circumstances which must make it impossible for them to enjoy the ordinary domestic happiness which is the right of every human being.

Mr. Johnston: Can the Under-Secretary say something in justification of the Government's intention to insist on local authorities, already over-burdened with rates, making a larger rate contribution in respect of new houses and after three years compelling them to pay half of the total Treasury subvention?

Mr. Wedderburn: Three years is a long time ahead, and I hope there is art inducement for them to get a move on before that time. With regard to the existing situation, I think local authorities realise that some increase in their rate contribution is justified, and that they gladly agree to the proposals of the Bill which they regard as being very favourably financially to themselves.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask whether the Scottish Office have received any applications from private Scottish concerns or local authorities asking for grants for this purpose and, secondly, whether they consulted the building trades on the question of guaranteeing employment?

Mr. Wedderburn: We could not receive any request from private concerns for grants when grants were not available.

Mr. Davidson: The Under-Secretary has misunderstood me. I am asking whether any representations were made by private concerns or local author ties for such grants.

Mr. Wedderburn: Representations were made by all kinds of people, including local authorities. In reply to the other question of the hon. Member when the predecessor of my right hon. Friend began negotiations with the building trades he brought in local authorities and presented them with an agreed programme for a long period of time; the object being to give them some assurance that if they took on large new works there would be no danger of the men being thrown out of employment in a short time. As the building programme required in Scotland is so immense I do not think there is any danger of that taking place.

Mr. Westwood: Two conferences were called by the Dumbartonshire County Council in which they unanimously agreed to request the Government to consider the question of making grants for reconditioning.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 115.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[11.5p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col, G. J.
Dodd, J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Duncan, J. A. L.
Higgs, W. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn,)
Dunglass, Lord
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Eastwood, J. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hopkinson, A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hunloke, H. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emery, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'h)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Beechman, N. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kimball, L.


Brass, Sir W.
Everard, W. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fildes, Sir H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fleming, E. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Foot, D. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bull, B. B.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Furness, S. N.
Levy, T.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Liddall, W. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lindsay, K. M.


Christie, J. A.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lipson, D. L.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Goldie, N. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Macdonald, Capt, T. (Isle of Wight)


Critchley, A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, J. H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D, W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cross, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Magnay, T.


Crossley, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Maitland, A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Cruddas, Col. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Denville, Alfred
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)




Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rowlands, G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Train, Sir J.


Munro, P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Salt, E. W.
Turton, R. H.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Petherick, M.
Scott, Lord William
Ward Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pilkington, R.
Selley, H. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Ramsbotham, H.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wise, A. R.


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spens, W. P.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Remer, J. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)



Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Hope.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Poole, C. C.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ridley, G.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill Committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses, and the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts, as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and by the continuance of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty, being expenses or receipts which, under or by virtue of either of the two last mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys or paid into the Exchequer."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Wallace.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I want to begin by making a protest against this Resolution being taken at this late hour of the night. I feel that I should be disloyal to the large number of unemployed men in my Division if I did not take this opportunity of bringing before the Committee the policy of the Government with regard to the distressed areas. I represent a Division right in the very heart of the distressed area in the county of Durham, and the Government have done nothing for that area. Some of my hon. Friends will be angry that one is raising the question at this late hour of the night, but I am certain that if they could see the people in my Division as I see them so often, with the stamp of poverty on their clothes and on their appearance, they would not be angry with me. I oppose this Resolution on several grounds, and I would be prepared to carry my opposition to it into the Division Lobby because of the way the money is being spent on the distressed areas and because of the failure of the Government to find sufficient money for dealing with unemployment in those areas; and although we need all the money we can get, yet, because of the way in which the money is being dealt with and because of the insufficiency of the money, I would do as we do on education and unemployment benefit and many other things, I would

be prepared to carry my opposition into the Division lobby.
I oppose this Resolution because the amount spent by the Commissioner, £10,000,000, is ridicuously small to solve so serious a problem. Four years ago the Commisioner was appointed, and during those four years he has spent 10,000,000, an annual average of 2,500,000, to cure the disease of chronic unemployment. The result has been that the policy of the Government has been just as ineffective as if a patient were given two Beecham's pills to cure a broken leg. The Financial Memorandum printed on the front page of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill says:
The total provision made to date for payments into the Special Areas Fund established by the Act of 1934 is £16,000,000, and such further Estimates as may be necessary will be presented on exhaustion of that sum.
Meanwhile, up to the 31st October, 1938, payments by the Commissioners for Special Areas have amounted to about £10,230,000…
There follow these staggering words:
The amount of expenditure to be incurred in, future by the Commissioners and the Treasury will depend on the extent to which they exercise their functions.
That is cold comfort for the distressed areas. They may spend anything, they may spend nothing. They may simply spend next year as much money as they have spent this year. Can the Minister tell us how this £10,000,000 is being spent? We are asked to vote this Financial Resolution, and there is not one Member in the House who knows how the money is being spent. Before we pass the Resolution we have a right to know how that £10,000,000 is being spent. The Minister of Labour, speaking to the House on 14th November, said:
Since the Commission's Report will be available very shortly, the House will have ample time to discuss the whole thing before the Bill is introduced.
What did the Minister mean by that? Did he not mean that before the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was introduced and this Money Resolution was before the House, the Commissioners Report would be issued? There is no sign of the Report, which is the only thing that can tell us how the money has been spent. Before the Resolution is passed we ought to have the Report so that the House can judge how the money has been spent.


The Minister of Labour made another statement which I should like him to explain:
We have been giving very careful consideration to the problem of the Special Areas, and have decided to ask Parliament to continue the present Acts for a further period. They will, therefore, be continued in the Expiring Laws Bill. This is not all. The House will remember that these Acts include provisions for encouraging the establishment of new industrial undertakings, not only in the Special Areas themselves but also in certain areas outside. Experience has shown that some modification of the present conditions applying to the outside areas is desirable in order to make loan facilities more readily available for new undertakings, and the Government propose to introduce legislation in due course for this purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1938; col. 646, Vol. 341.]
We have been told that we should not discuss the Special Areas because of the proposed legislation. The only construction that one can put upon the hon. Minister's words is that there is no intention of dealing with the Special Areas in the future, that the new legislation will not touch the Special Areas, and that it will deal only with outside areas, and these only in order to give them loan facilities. It is not sufficient for the Government to say they are going to bring in new legislation, and then for that legislation to mean so little to the Special Areas, to the outside areas and to where-ever unemployment is so bad. The Prime Minister on Thursday made a statement that rather puzzled me, and perhaps the Minister of Labour will explain what he meant.
We want to keep the present Act in existence by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but that does not mean that it is the end of the matter. As I explained before, further legislation is contemplated and will give an opportunity for further discussion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1938; col. 1061, Vol. 341.]
What further discussion can there be—

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that this Financial Resolution is confined entirely to the present Act, and we cannot discuss other legislation that there may be in future. He must confine himself, therefore, to the present Act.

Mr. Batey: I was not going to talk about future legislation. I should like to know what the Prime Minister meant, and who had advised him, because

clearly he was under a misapprehension when he made that statement. I submit that the proposed legislation will make no difference to Durham, or anywhere else. What we want is to be able to voice our claim to be free to make Amendments in the Special Areas Act. There are members in the House who want to add other areas to the list of Special Areas.

The Deputy-Chairman: That, I am afraid, is quite out of Order. We cannot go into the question of other areas now.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: If a Bill is presented for Second Reading—and that is really what inclusion in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill means—surely it is competent on the Money Resolution for such Bill, for an Amendment to be moved, or for comment to be made, expressing a desire for the money to be applied to other areas as well?

The Deputy-Chairman: But not under this Bill. We have to confine ourselves entirely to the Measures which are included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. Benn: Do you rule that the inclusion of a Bill in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is different procedure from the presentation of a Bill in the ordinary manner for Second Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman: The procedure is considerably narrower.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It is not proposed to add to the amount of money which Parliament is to find, and as it is not proposed to do that is it not in Order to argue that the same amount of money may be allocated to a number of different areas? I remember that this point was raised before, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker at that time said that it was not in Order, because the recipient of the money had been indicated by the King's Recommendation. That is a disability under which we do not labour this evening. We are discussing whether we should find certain sums of money and not His Majesty's Recommendation as to who should be the recipient of them. My hon. Friend is not arguing that the


amount of money should be increased, but that there should be a redistribution of the money, and I submit that he is in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: When we are discussing the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill we are limited to the Acts in existence and whether they should be continued or not. We cannot allocate the money to different objects.

Mr. Bevan: We are not arguing that the money should be spent in any different way, because the way in which the money is to be spent is, obviously, limited by the language of the Act itself. We are discussing the amount of money; we are not adding to the amount of money. Surely it is open to my hon. Friend to argue that we should alter or add to the recipients of the money, because the recipients of the money were not defined by the Bill but by the King's Recommendation.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of Order. I notice in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill certain other Measures—the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, which would be continued if this Bill were passed.

The Deputy-Chairman: They are not covered by the present Money Resolution.

Mr. Silverman: I appreciate that, but would it not be in order in discussing a Money Resolution which is:
for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws
and to devote certain money to two Acts in the Schedule, to comment on the failure of the Resolution to provide money for the purposes of other Acts continued by this Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not. The discussion must be entirely limited to the subjects covered by the Resolution.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: While recognising that the Money Resolution covers certain specified areas, I would point out that there are Members from other areas which may be affected by the conditions and the smallness of the money granted. Is it

in order for such other Members to raise those points?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not, because we are limited by the Existing Act, and we cannot go further.

Mr. Davidson: The existing Act affects not only the Special Areas. The Minister of Labour and other representatives of the Government have recognised that the existing Act dealing with the Special Areas affects other parts of the country. Surely we are in order in putting our point of view with regard to the operation of the Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is in order to comment on any moneys spent under the existing Acts, but we cannot go outside the existing Acts.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Benn: May I recall to your mind that there was a very long discussion on this very point about the Special Areas, that Members complained bitterly that they were not able to move any Amendments about the allocation of money and that a Select Committee was set up to examine the point, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)? I was a Member of that Committee, which clearly laid it down that whereas it was impossible to permit Members to move Amendments which increased the public charge, it was at the same time clear that the proper time for Members to express dissatisfaction with the allocation or the insufficiency of the money was on the Money Resolution. Now you rule that because this matter is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it has acme special merit. I submit that it has less merit on that account. This is the first time that a Money Resolution has been connected with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and it is a novelty, but I hope that the Government are not getting a Money Resolution through under cover of the Bill in such a way as to deprive Members of their rights to express their grievances. I submit that it is in order on the Money Resolution to criticise the Government both as to the adequacy and as to the distribution of the funds so provided.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is in order to criticise the Government for any act done under the Special Areas Act, but


the time for doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests would be on the Money Resolution or the Second Reading of such new Bill as the Minister may introduce.

Mr. Benn: That is precisely the point where we criticise the cunning of the Government. They take the old Act, clap it into the Schedule of the Bill and then claim, under your Ruling, special privileges which restrict discussion, saying that we have no right to criticise the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I submit that we are not deprived under this Resolution of any privilege of debate or criticism which we should enjoy were it the Money Resolution of an ordinary Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is no new Bill. He will be fully entitled to criticise the Government for any action that they have taken under the existing Act, which is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but he cannot go outside that.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: This is the first time a distinction has been made between one Bill and another-between an old Bill and a new Bill. A Bill is a Bill, and I know of no Standing Order in which a distinction is made between one Bill and another. We are about to pass a Money Resolution for a Bill which must be a new Bill. At the moment there is no Bill. We are about to enact a Bill and I submit that the fact that such a Bill has formerly been the subject of an Act of Parliament has no bearing on the matter, and that what we are entitled to discuss is whether or not this amount of money should be added to or subtracted from, or whether the beneficiaries should be altered. The fact that it is in the Expiring Laws Bill does not, in my submission, endow the issue with any special privileges under the Standing Orders.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is mistaken. We are discussing the question of continuing an existing Act, and the scope of that Act cannot be extended by discussion on the Money Resolution.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: May I put a specific case? Supposing that Leith came under this scheme, and that it were an area that received a certain proportion of the

£10,000,000 spent; and supposing that Glasgow Members of Parliament were informed that the expenditure of this money was taking certain areas from Glasgow—from another constituency; do you then rule that Glasgow Members cannot criticise this expenditure as applied to Leith, or refer to a constituency or area that is outside the Special Area?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is beyond the scope of the Bill, and therefore out of order. I have given my Ruling, and must adhere to it.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I understand, Colonel Brown, that you now rule that we can discuss the money that is being spent under this Bill. May I remind you that the money spent under this present Bill includes money spent both by the Commissioners and by the Treasury, and also includes money spent both in the Special Areas and in the areas outside? I was going to argue for more Amendments in the Bill, or more freedom in the Bill, so that money might be spent more freely and so that we might know where it was going to be spent in the future, both in the Special Areas and also in the outside areas. That was the line of argument that I was going to take, but I will leave that and come back to the point of the money spent by the Commissioners.
The Government's policy seems to be to say, through the Commissioners, that the only remedy for unemployment is the trading estate, and I want to deal with the money that has been spent in connection with the trading estates. One finds that this Special Areas Bill has been put into the Expiring Laws Bill, not at the request of this House, but at the request of the development boards. They went to the Minister of Labour and asked him to put this Special Areas Bill into the Expiring Laws Act, but they did not understand that that would prevent Members of this House from moving any Amendments to the Bill.
I submit that Members of this House ought to be free to move any Amendments they wish for the purpose of improving the Bill, both in regard to the Special Areas and the outside areas. The only policy the Government have for dealing with unemployment is that of the trading estates. We have three trading estates in


the Special Area of Durham. In one the Commissioner has spent £1,500,000. There are employed on that estate 1,603 persons, of whom only 585 are men of 18 years or over. What we want in the distressed areas is work for men. The Government's policy is one of finding work for boys and girls, but not for men. There is another trading estate in Durham where 282 persons are employed, and of those only 42 are men of 18 or over. We have in Durham trading estates to find work for men of 18 years and over to the number of 627. That is after the trading estates have been in existence four years. We are not going to solve the unemployment problem at that rate. There is something to be said, also, about the employment of the girls on these estates. Only this week I received a letter from the Amalgamated Society of Leather Workers. It says:
Enclosed please find a few particulars of a firm which has been started in the depressed area of Durham. We are sending in a request to the Ministry of Labour for an enquiry to be made into the conditions of work and wages paid by this firm. We would very much appreciate your support in this matter.
Here are the particulars:
A few months ago a firm, trading under the name of Alligator Leather Goods Co., Ltd.,' was started on the new trading estate, St. Helen's, Bishop Auckland, Co. Durham. There are five directors, all of German birth, though two are now British subjects.… This district, as you will be well aware, is part of a distressed area. The firm, for the present, are taking advantage of it. We have, as stated, ho members and, so far as we can ascertain, not one is receiving more than 8s. a week. Some are getting less.
Of course, there has been a fire this week at these leather works.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Are you laughing about that?

Mr. Batey: No. But a firm which pays girls 8s. a week or less ought not to exist. The Government should be ashamed to put up a factory with public money in order that Germans may employ girls at 8s. a week and not let them be organised.
That is one way in which the money is being spent. My chief reason for raising the question to-night is that, in that part of Durham, things are simply getting worse, in spite of all that the Government claim to have done and to have spent. In the Spennymoor Employment

Exchange the index of unemployment shows that in January of this year there was 20·5 per cent. of unemployment, and that in October it had jumped to 26·4 per cent., and in another employment exchange in my Division the figure in January was 21 per cent. and in October 31 per cent. Things are really getting worse and we are dissatisfied with the present policy of the Government.
Pits are being closed continually in the county of Durham. I put a question only yesterday to the Secretary for Mines, in which I asked him how many pits had been closed in Durham since 1924, and the answer was that there had been 91 pits closed in that county and that 16,455 persons had been thrown out of employment. That is a staggering condition of things, which we cannot allow to continue without raising our voices in this House and protesting against it. Since the Commissioner was appointed in 1934 there have been 22 pits closed in Durham, throwing out of employment no fewer than 4,377 persons. Already this year 10 pits have been closed, and only recently a pit was closed in my Division which had employed 695 persons, one was closed in a neighbouring division which had employed 1,305 persons, and another in the Bishop Auckland Division employing 531 persons. We shall not be satisfied unless the Government are prepared to do something that they have not considered doing up to the present time. We want to be satisfied that they are not merely putting the Special Areas Act into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in order to close the mouths of Members in this House. We talk about Hitlerism preventing free speech. The Government are preventing free speech in this House. They are trying to prevent Members from discussing the distressed areas, as we would have the opportunity of doing in a Distressed Areas Bill. The Government should seriously consider whether their policy up to the present time has not been an absolute failure. Certainly it has not been a success. The time has come when the Government should seriously reconsider the position and see whether they cannot get a new policy in order to help the distressed areas.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I would like to ask the occupant of the Chair to recall the fact


that the occasion upon which acute controversy arose in the House about the status and scope of Money Resolutions was on the Special Areas Bill and the establishment of a Committee. Now, on the first occasion that the same subject is up for discussion again, we have the unusual feature of a Money Resolution preceding the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We should therefore like to know from you, Sir, what is the scope of the discussion that arises on this Resolution. Are we going to say that we can discuss the merits of the Bill and then, when it comes to the Bill itself, are we to be stopped from discussing them because we have discussed them already or are we to he limited on the Resolution because we are to discuss the Bills afterwards? One of the issues raised was that it was quite improper to have two discussions on the same issue—that you could not discuss the merits of the Bills on the Resolution and on the Bill itself. Then, if we are to discuss the merits of the Bills—and you, Sir, have allowed my hon. Friend to discuss many features of the Special Areas Bill—ought we to discuss them at ten minutes to eleven, because this is a very important issue which we have been waiting to discuss for some time? If we are not to be allowed to discuss the merits of the Bills, can we get an assurance that when we come to the Bill itself we shall not be prevented from discussing the merits of the Bills because we have already passed the Money Resolution? This is for us a very important matter. If we can get some guidance it will help us to determine our course of action.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think again hon. Members are confusing the situation. The Bill itself is merely a question whether or not we are to continue certain expiring laws, of which the Special Areas Act is only one. The principle of the Bill that the hon. Member wants to discuss is outside the Money Resolution entirely. It is simply a question of continuing certain laws which are about to expire. It is out of Order now to discuss the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I submit that the Committee has now been put in an absolutely absurd situation. What are we now being told? If it is impossible to discuss the merits of any of the Bills contained in this Bill on the Money Resolution, my hon. Friend

should have been pulled up long before he concluded his speech, When we come to the Bill itself we shall be prevented, by the same Ruling, from discussing the content of any Bill continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Hon. Members opposite may think that very desirable, but for us it is wholly undesirable. This is the subject that gave rise to acute controversy and held the House up for three days some months ago. The House ought to be adjourned in order to give the two sides an opportunity of discussing the matter and coming to some compromise on it, because we are deeply suspicious that we are being tricked and that the Chair is once more being used as an instrument to prevent the House from discussing the matter. [Interruption.] You may say "No" as much as you like but hon. Members opposite have long ceased to represent their constituencies on this matter, They ought not to shelter behind the application of the Rules of the House to prevent the proper discussion of an important matter of public interest. I submit that we ought to have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member put a point of Order to me and not to the Parliamentary Secretary. I must adhere to the Ruling I have given. Hon. Members cannot go outside the administration of the Act.

Mr. Dingle Foot: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary to instruct you to put the Question?

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Benn: May I ask whether you can see your way to express your opinion about this practice of taking substantial Acts which require a Money Resolution and sweeping them into the scope of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? May not this be taken as a precedent which might enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the Finance Bill into the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? There must be some limit to this. If it involves a limitation of debate then it is not right to put into the Schedule of the Bill a Measure on which many hon. Members feel keenly and upon which they wish to express their opinions.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Benn: May I ask what precedents there are for the inclusion in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Bills which involve a Money Resolution?

Mr. E. Brown: rose—

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have several important matters to raise before the Minister speaks, but I think the point of Order should be cleared up first.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are precedents—of course I cannot carry them in my mind—for such Acts being included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. Benn: I submit that there are only one or two precedents and that they are quite recent. I submit also that this practice of putting a Money Resolution on to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill really amounts to an abuse of the procedure of this Committee.

Mr. Davidson: May I point out, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that I and some of my hon. Friends clearly heard the Patronage Secretary in a very arrogant voice tell you to put the Question, and may I ask—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is making reflections upon the Chair.

Mr. Davidson: May I put a point of Order? In view of the fact that many hon. Members heard the observation, I am asking whether the Chair heard it and if the Chair has any comments to make upon such undignified action?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Benn: This is only one of several matters which arise on the Money Resolution. The trouble arises because many matters which should be the subject of separate discussion are wrapped up in one parcel. For example, there is the question of debt settlement. I was amazed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said nothing about the Debts Clearing Offices. We do not know the countries affected or the amount of the balances. I suggest to the Patronage Secretary that at this late hour he should permit further discussion to be adjourned so that we can clear up the whole matter amicably.

12 m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I am always very willing to fall in with suggestions from hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but they know full well that the effective stage for the discussion of Bills contained in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is the Committee stage. A whole day has been set aside at the beginning of next week for the discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill, but that cannot be taken until the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution has been passed; the Committee stage of the Bill is not vitalised until that has been done. In view of the fact that the Government wish to proceed with this piece of legislation at the beginning of next week I must ask the Committee to let us have it in order that there may be full time for discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: I take it that when we discuss those matters in the Committee stage we shall be permitted to discuss not the contents of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill but the contents of the Acts proposed to be continued under the Bill. We have had it from the Patronage Secretary, but not from the Chair. All that we desire to do is to safeguard our rights to raise the contents of the Special Areas Act. It has been argued in the past that the only matter which can be discussed in these circumstances is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill itself. Year after year we have had this matter discussed in the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I ask for an assurance from the Chair that when we come to discuss the contents of the Acts proposed to be continued we shall have a full opportunity to discuss what the Government have done in respect of them, the scope of them and, other matters relating to them. If we have that assurance the position is made much easier, but we are suspicious, because we have been tricked before.

Captain Margesson: It is exactly for that reason that I made my suggestion, but I must point out that, as Patronage Secretary—as the hon. Member called me—I am not responsible for what is in Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question clearly and specifically


to the Chair. I feel that an answer will be given which will be perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. Bevan: I have asked it three times, but I will ask it again, Colonel Clifton Brown. Are we to have a discussion? If this Money Resolution is passed tonight, shall we have an opportunity, when we discuss the further stages of the Bill, of raising the contents of the Act proposed to be continued by the Bill, with regard to scope, past administration and matters of that sort?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is perfectly correct. The hon. Member can move to omit from the Schedule the Special Areas Act.

Mr. Bevan: And move an Amendment, Sir? Will it be practicable for hon. Members to move Amendments?

The Deputy-Chairman: Any Amendment will be to omit that particular item.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Benn: That is exactly what the Government knew when they put the Act into this Schedule. I submit to you, Sir, that this is the only opportunity on which hon. Members can put in a plea for more money or better distribution of money. The Government know that if hon. Members move to omit from the Schedule the Special Areas Act in order to discuss grievances, the Government can say to the country that the Labour party wish to deprive the Special Areas of any assistance whatever. Therefore, that is the reason the Government have adopted this novel procedure of popping into the Schedule of the Bill an Act which requires money and, almost in an unprecedented way, has required a Money Resolution to the Expiring Laws Committee Bill. Now the whole plan is clear.

Mr. E. Brown: May I point out that the facts are not quite as the hon. Member has stated. He spoke as if the Financial Resolution limits the amount of money to be paid out. That is not so. The sum is a flexible sum, and it never has been fixed.

Mr. Benn: Then, since it is a flexible sum, it must be in order for my hon. Friends to discuss the distribution of it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Rhys Davies.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I should not be doing my duty towards the people I represent here if I did not raise one or two questions on another issue arising out of the Money Resolution. Hon. Members will see that on the first page of the Financial Memorandum it is stated that up to 31st October, 1938, payments by the Commissioners for Special Areas amounted to about £10,230,000, and the Memorandum goes on to say:
And in addition the Treasury have paid out £316,208 in assistance to site companies and to industrial undertakings under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1937.
The first point I want to raise is this. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many site companies have been formed, and what the site companies that have been formed have been doing? I think a site company has been established in Lancashire for about 12 months, but it has done nothing. What is the use of passing a Bill and providing money for a company that does nothing? Later in the Financial Memorandum, it is stated:
These payments by the Treasury are additional to the payments out of the Special Areas Fund.
There is then this statement:
Further commitments (provisionally or finally) entered by the Commissioners amount to about £11,680,000 and by the Treasury to £747,458.
I think it is fair to ask what is meant by this additional sum of £747,458. What site companies are in contemplation? If the Government proceed to establish site companies with the aid of Government grants, and these companies do not do better than the Lancashire site company, then the Government might as well give up the whole of their policy in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is about time he revised his attitude towards the whole of this problem.
My hon. Friend was saying that things are bad in Durham. Let me tell him that a township in my division, having 6,000 inhabitants, has had a permanent unemployment rate of 70 per cent. for seven years. In the towns of Westhoughton and Hindley, for the last seven or eight years, the official unemployment rate has been about 45 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us what he intends to do about these


areas that are not scheduled. When we were told about site companies at the time the Bill was passed, everybody expected that something would be done. We expected trading estates on the lines the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. What has happened? Not a brick has been laid anywhere, not a stroke of work has been done, and patches of Lancashire are indeed in a worse position than any of the areas that are scheduled. Before we pass this Resolution, we want to know what site companies have been established; what they have been doing; what other site companies are in contemplation and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it worth while to proceed with a policy of this sort, in trying to solve the unemployment problem?

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to put another view of this problem, speaking as a Scottish Member. If any distressed area can be said to be completely neglected under these provisions, it is the Scottish distressed area. So much is that the case, that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Scotland, in his own constituency, there is a growing movement which is determined to see some action taken, in this matter, against the right hon. Gentleman himself. This is not on the part of members of the official Labour party, but on the part of an organisation of men and women of all sections in the community, who are appalled at the continued loss of trade in Scotland and the continued degradation of the Scottish people in the distressed areas. If the right hon. Gentleman examines carefully his own replies to Questions put by me regarding unemployment and loss of trade in Scotland, and the increasing poverty in those areas, I think he will be far from satisfied, and it may help to remove that complacent, smug countenance for which he is so well known in this House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] If there is anything un-Parliamentary in referring to hon. Members opposite as "smug and complacent," then I am afraid, Col. Clifton Brown, I have been out of Order many times during my Parliamentary career.
There is one other point on which I should like the Minister to give us some information. It is a point which will

probably be raised later by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) in reference to another part of Scotland farther North. How much of this money has been allocated to areas in Scotland which depend largely on their agricultural produce? Within the period of the right hon. Gentleman's career, even during his term of office and under the scheme which he has initiated, huge tracts of land have been depopulated. In some places there are six or seven people to-day, where formerly there were 400 or 500 or even 1000. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman for some information regarding the type of employer who is to take over the Hillingdon trading estate. It seems to many people in Glasgow very remarkable that, in the case of this subsidised estate, the chairman should be a man who is well known as one of the greatest anti-trade unionists in Scotland, and the man who was responsible for dismissing a bank clerk who wanted to marry on less than £200 a year. These are factors which the right hon. Gentleman must confront, and I would be very grateful if he would give me and my Scottish colleagues some information as to when some new move, is to he made to improve the conditions of the workers in Scotland.

12.15 a.m.

Sir Henry Fildes: I would like to join in the request for more information. What is it proposed to do in many districts which are not at present scheduled as distressed areas? The town council of Dumfries, within the last fortnight, have called attention to the fact that in Dumfries now, out of a population of 23,000, there are some 2,300 unemployed. The average of unemployment there is greater than it is in many of these distressed areas, and I, for one, would like to see a little less attention paid to these so-called distressed areas, and a little more to the districts which have for years borne uncomplainingly very unfair treatment. I would like to hear from the Minister what is to be done in those other places which are suffering most acutely, and have received no assistance whatever from the Government in solving their problem?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would not be in order to go into those matters on this Resolution.

Mr. Bellenger: May I submit that the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, earlier told the Committee that the amount of money dealt with here is flexible. Therefore is not the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) in order?

The Deputy-Chairman: The amount is flexible within the administration of the Act, but it is not in order to raise matters which are outside the Act.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Silverman: Suppose the Committee felt that the Resolution made a completely inequitable distribution of the money as between one part of the country and another, what method is open to hon. Members to make their criticisms and to appeal to the Government for a more equitable distribution? It seems that the whole function of this House depends upon the right of this Committee to determine how public money is to be spent. We are being asked to vote a flexible amount of money and we are told that, even though we think the money is to be inequitably distributed, we cannot discuss its distribution. If that be so, I should like to know upon what occasion we can discuss these inequities and seek to remedy them?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for me to say upon what other occasion, but this is not the occasion.

Mr. Silverman: It may be that this is is not the occasion but if this Resolution is passed without the opportunity for such discussion, is it conceivable that no other occasion can possibly arise on which we can deal with the inequities of what has already been done by this Committee and the House? It would, indeed, seem to be a monstrous abuse of the procedure of the House if we cannot discuss these inequities upon the present occasion, and, if, when we sought to raise them subsequently, we are told that this was a matter which the House had already decided.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are many occasions on which grievances may be raised.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the point any further.

Mr. Silverman: With all respect, I am afraid I must press the point. There are,

no doubt, all sorts of occasions on which all sorts of grievances may be raised but here we are dealing, once and for all, with the raising of certain sums of money and with the distribution of those moneys between one part of the country and another, and between one set of beneficiaries and another. You are dealing with it once and for all, and I ask you to say, if there be indeed no other opportunity, that it must follow that the opportunity is now.

The Deputy-Chairman: rose—

12.20 a m.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to pursue this point, but hon. Members are entitled to some reason and explanation. If it be true, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the amount covered by the Bill is flexible, then presumably the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman in the distribution of the amount of the money is itself flexible. Is it not open to hon. Members to argue that that flexibility has not been properly exercised?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that there is no flexibility so far as the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. It is confined to this Act.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: In this discussion I find myself torn between conflicting emotions. I want to retain in the Schedule the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act because it is of very great importance to the people whom I represent and I am therefore particularly anxious that the Bill should be passed; but I am called upon at the same time to vote for something which, in my judgment, is inadequate to meet a problem that the Government are seeking, or pretending to be seeking, to solve. I am called upon to vote for that Act because I want the other; yet the two are not in any way connected. A vote for these financial provisions must be given and I must appear to sanction the spending of the money and to say "Aye" to the Government's method of dealing with unemployment, simply because I want a guarantee that the weavers in my constituency are paid a reasonable rate of wages. There is no possibility of getting this unless the Cotton Act is continued.
It is strange, but true, that the one arose out of the other. Until we had


unemployment and depression in the cotton industry the necessity for the provisions of this Cotton Act did not arise. This Act, which we are continuing for another 12 months by the passing of the Bill, is based upon the legalisation of a scale of wages which the Government insist upon the employers paying. Only because the industry became depressed were the workers not in a position to enforce the payment of a standard rate of wages, and they had to seek legalisation in order that the employers should be honest. I am not suggesting that they are acting honestly now, because I know that in many instances they are not living up to the Act. In many districts weavers are so badly paid that they are not in a position to enforce the Act but, that Act being on the Statute Book, we can take employers into court, and that acts as a deterrent. For that reason I am particularly anxious that the Bill should be passed to-night. I see an hon. Gentleman in front of me turning round as though I am making a rash statement. I am speaking with full knowledge of what is taking place in the industry day by day, and I could not sit here—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Cotton Manufacturing Industry Act does not come within the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Tomlinson: The necessity for it arose out of the unemployment in that area and the Money Resolution we are discussing deals with unemployment but does not touch that area. It may be said that I am not in order in discussing it because that is not a Special Area. I ask the Minister "When does an area become a Special Area?" Some one suggested that it is when it is dead. I want to refer to two areas within the bounds mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), which are experiencing distress.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss areas which he would like to see placed within the Special Areas Act.

Mr. Tomlinson: What I want to find out is whether there are any means by which money which is being voted under this Resolution can be made available to meet the problem which we are endeavouring to deal with. If there are not there ought to be. If by continuing this Special Areas Act we are doing no more

than, as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said, fiddling with the question, then we ought to consider whether it is worth while to pass the Money Resolution. I know all the implications of voting against the Money Resolution. I know what it would mean to us in Lancashire if, through losing the Bill, we lost those Acts which have been referred to, but I ask how long it will take us to deal successfully with the problem we are considering. The hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that the £1,500,000 spent by the Commissioner upon the trading estate had found work for 500 men. According to that calculation I estimate that it will cost about £2,700,000,000 to find employment for the million now unemployed. Is that the proposal of the Government? Is that the only way in which, through this Bill, they are dealing with the problem of unemployment? If it is they ought to tell the country so, and there ought to be some opportunity for Members on this side to raise the matter in the House. My constituents are constantly saying to me "The Special Areas are being dealt with, and yet there are scores of townships in Lancashire which are in a worse position than those areas." Before we pass this Resolution we ought to have an assurance from the Minister that some way will be found in which the House can deal with those people who are looking to us for help. They point to the areas in which the money is being spent and ask "Why there, and not in our place? I am repeating their questions here to-night. I am told it is out of order to attempt to bring in other districts. Why is it out of order? How can these people be dealt with in legislation if not in this legislation?

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Sexton: Several hon. Members have come under the muzzling order. I shall try my very best to keep within the narrow limits which have been laid down. It does not seem very much use wondering why only the small sum referred to here has been appropriated to the Special Areas, because the people there have been condemned to penury and they have no hope of anything from the National Government. They have no hope that the National Government will do anything to lift them out of their slough of despond. They have no faith


in this financial proposition, because it is all too meagre in amount. We have been told that it is flexible. I suppose a better term for it would be "elastic"—spread out and thinned out all over the countryside. Why, the money which has been already spent in these areas has not touched the fringe of the problem. As the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said, there are so few adults being employed in these trading estates that it will take 80 years in the County of Durham at the present rate to satisfy the unemployed there, 50,000 in number, 18 years of age and over.
I wish to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Spennymoor about these trading estates. It is true they have found work for a number of young people. In fact, very largely they have become factories for bairns. One of them is very appropriately called "the alligator factory," and when you consider the wages mentioned by the hon. Member, I think that is a very apt term for the firm to be called. The hard core of unemployment has not been touched at all, and will not be touched by this financial proposition. The people in the north of England and in South Wales and in all the Special Areas have been entirely ignored by the National Government. The trading estates have had no effect at all in the rural areas of these Special Areas. I represent the Barnard Castle Division of Durham which is very largely a rural area. I do not want to enter into competition with other hon. Members about the percentage of unemployment, but in the west of Durham, in Teesdale and in Weardale especially, we have from 80 to 85 per cent. of unemployed. It is true there are not many of them in the aggregate but the percentage stands as high as anywhere in the country.
Out of this financial proposition of the Government nothing has been spent for these people at all. They are only small in numbers and they are modest people, but they are just as worthy, even if they are inarticulate. I dare not go back to my Division and allow my people to say to me that there was a Debate on this financial proposition and that I had not taken part in it to say something on their behalf No money is being spent in these country areas. The only money that is being spent is not by the Government but that which is spent by the unemployed themselves in travelling to

and fro—six miles—to sign twice a week for the meagre 14 shillings from the Unemployment Assistance Board. They have to spend 18 pence or two shillings in travelling to sign on. The only financial help in those districts is what they have to pay from their own meagre pittance.
I do not know whether I shall be in order in referring to the money spent in this country by people flying to Munich. There has been nobody flying to the Special Areas, and there has been no money set apart under the Special Areas Act to provide for some Cabinet Ministers or for the Prime Minister himself to fly to these Special Areas—and not only to fly there but to live there and try to live under Unemployment Assistance Board conditions such as the people there have to live under. Therefore, I would have been failing in my duty to my people in the Barnard Castle Division if I had not stood up here and raised my voice against such a meagre proposition from the National Government.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Silverman: I fully understand now that I am not entitled in discussing this Resolution to refer to areas that I think ought to have been included under it. I will not go as far as to say that I understand why I am precluded from doing that, but I do understand that I should not be allowed to proceed if I were to attempt to do it. On the other hand, what the Committee is being asked to decide and what I, as a member of the Committee, must decide, is whether or not I, representing certain people in Lancashire, ought to vote for the provision of this money or to vote against its provision. I think it is only proper, in considering that question, that I should address myself to the question, "Would my constituents lose by it supposing this Resolution were defeated"? I am bound to conclude that they would lose nothing. They do not benefit by it in any way, and from that standpoint it is a matter of complete indifference whether the money is provided or not. That being so, they ought to consider, I suppose, and I, as representing them, should consider, whether there are any grounds on which I ought to support the provision of this money that does not inure to the benefit of themselves.
In doing that, one has to consider comparative conditions. If it were true


that in the areas which would benefit by the expenditure of this money people are suffering to a degree greater than those I am representing, then it would be proper for me, as their representative, to vote for the expenditure of that money on those terms. But if, on the other hand, it appears that the condition of the people in my own constituency is no better than, and in many respects is far worse, than that of those who would benefit by the expenditure of this money, then it would be doing my duty as their representative to vote against it. That is the position. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, in a Debate a day or two ago claiming—and I am sure he was sincere in making that claim, whether other people would concede it to him or not—that there had never been made out to him a case whose justice he himself would concede that he had not endeavoured to meet. I challenge him on that. I say it is not so. If he examines again his own recollection I tell him he must agree that it is not so.
It is nearly three years since I and others represented to him the case of certain weavers in Lancashire and the method of payment whereby they got very very small sums indeed, pitifully small sums, fantatiscally and ridicuously small sums—sums which were only a fractional part of what those people would get from public assistance committees or from the unemployment exchanges if they had not been employed at all. They were debarred from earning wages or receiving public relief or unemployment benefit. He admitted, as he admits to-day, because he knows the facts are true, that the case had been made cut and that it was unjust. But has he done anything about it? Not one thing. Deputation after deputation, speech after speech, and question after question—and always the smooth sympathetic reply from the Minister. Always the concession that their case was a good one and that he had every sympathy with it, but no practical help. Not one attempt has he made. Not a finger did he raise to meet the case which he himself knows and has readily admitted to be a good case. Are his resources so limited? People talk with ridicule of a former member of his office who said a good many years ago.…

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member must confine himself to the Special Areas. As I understand it, he is dealing with other cases. If so, he is out of order.

Mr. Silverman: If I may say so, I am not attempting to deal with those other cases at all. I am addressing myself only to the question of whether I, who do not represent a Special Area, within the meaning of the Act, ought fairly to be called upon to vote for the provision of this money or could equitably vote against it. I know I am not entitled to ask for any benefit under this resolution for those other areas. I am not asking for it, I am comparing case for case with the object of showing that if I have an opportunity, as I hope I shall, of going into the Lobby against this Money Resolution, it will be done, not because I want to deprive any member of the working class of this realm of any advantage that might conceivably come to him under this Act or this Resolution, but as a protest against the callous and long-continued neglect of other cases which are no whit less deserving than those which benefit.
In giving my reasons for voting and urging other members of this Committee to vote against this Resolution, I am, strictly subject to your ruling, within the Rules of Order. I was about to say I had heard ridicule cast from time to time on a remark made by a former occupant of the right hon. Gentleman's office who said that he could not get rabbits out of a hat. May I suggest that if he is unable to do more than he has done for the Special Areas, then he gets rabbits out of a hat every time he takes his own hat off. That, I think, is the position of the Government as a whole. I appeal to him. He knows the case has been made out. He knows we are right: he said so himself. Now we are asked to believe that nearly three years afterwards his own personal resources and the resources of his Department were completely helpless to rectify an injustice which he admits, and an injustice which has become a public scandal. I say than is the record not of a Ministry of Cabinet Ministers, but a ministry of rabbits. This is the only opportunity of saying that. I might modify my views with regard to the Money Resolution if the Minister of Labour could give me any assurance even now that he proposes at some early date to deal with these matters effectively.
May I respectfully say, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not waste any time to-night upon expressions of sympathy. We know he is sympathetic. We have every reason to know it because he has told us so repeatedly for a very long time. What we want to know now is what practical help he can offer. If lie can offer none, he cannot complain if we vote against this Money Resolution as being a fraud upon the public, and a disgraceful commentary upon the inadequacy of His Majesty's Government as at present constituted to deal with even the elementary injustices that are brought to their notice from time to time.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Burke: I want to ask the Minister one or two points about a Special Area which is covered by the 1937 Act. One point is in reference to the £700,000 which is down here to be granted by the Treasury for the purpose of site companies. My own constituency is one of those areas which can come under that particular allocation. I want to ask when the Lancashire site company was formed. If my information is correct, it was in the early part of last year, and I want to know at what date the Treasury passed the money over to them to enable them to get on with their work. I think, if I remember rightly, that there was a very considerable lapse of time between the two dates, and during all that time, of course, the problem of unemployment in Lancashire was getting steadily worse. There is another point. The local authorities in these Special Areas have for some considerable time been endeavouring to get various firms to come into these areas.
The incidence of the Lancashire site company in one particular area only has not helped these authorities, because all that has happened in the expenditure of that money has been that firms which might have gone into the areas have been drawn into other places, and, as a matter of fact, the expenditure of this money has not really helped the problem of unemployment at all. It has not produced any more work for the unemployed. We understood when this money was first voted that it would contribute to the unemployment problem in those areas. As a matter of fact the unemployment problem has got steadily worse. An hon. Member to-night spoke about an unemployment

problem in Scotland of about 10 per cent. As a matter of fact, in the areas around my own constituency it is about 40 per cent.
The Minister, in considering the expenditure of this money upon site companies—we have only one in Lancashire—should bear in mind not merely that one company, but the dangers and difficulties in driving the worst kind of employment into certain areas in Lancashire, which does not really contribute to the fundamental problem at all. I ask him to hear in mind that in allocating this money he will also have regard to those areas, special though they are, which are outside the purview of the money which is being spent on the various site companies. I would like information about the lapse of time that occurred between the setting up of that company and the granting of the money by the Treasury, and an explanation as to why the length of time happened.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) referred to the recent flight of the Prime Minister. I am only going to refer to that in relation to what I consider the not altogether unconstitutional, but rather unparliamentary action of the Government. The Prime Minister came back with a fait accompli, and presented it to Parliament. The Government tonight are endeavouring to slip out of criticism by putting before us for a few minutes a subject of very great importance to hundreds of thousands of people, and to hundreds of thousands of others who ought to be covered by the Special Areas Act. They are trying to avoid criticism, and discussion as well, because they know there will be criticism. They have tried to present to the House what would amount to a fait accompli almost without discussion. That is not unconstitutional, but it appears to me to be rather unparliamentary in spirit at least.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) said certain things about the Minister himself, and he took no exception, possibly because he recognised the truth. It is wise to tell the whole truth. I do not know what I should have to indulge in in the way of—I had almost said expletives—but I shall say adjectives, or perhaps even explosions, in order to express which I think of his


lack of works. Last year it will be recalled that we had to force the issue to discussion. The Patronage Secretary attempted, I believe, on that occasion to move the Closure on the financial discussion altogether. I think I am right in saying that the occasion of that all night sitting was much the same as the occasion tonight.
I am very much surprised that the Minister and his friends did not learn any lesson from that occasion. After all, it hurt them just as much as it hurt us to sit up all night, and they seem to be quite as numb and immune to feeling at both ends on this occasion as they were on that occasion. I do not hope to make any impression on at least one end of the right hon. Gentleman, and Parliamentary procedure would prevent anyone from attempting to make any impression on the other end. On that occasion there was ruled out for all purposes of administering the Special Areas Amendment Act many areas which, as my hon. Friend has said, are just as badly hit as many of the areas I want to discuss tonight. On that occasion I proved beyond all doubt that we had satisfied all the conditions as to sphere and prolongation of unemployment and in regard to the fact that the industries must be expected to expire, like some of these laws will do unless we protect them, unless the Government took action in these areas. I think that we proved that all these conditions had been more than satisfied and that the House was satisfied that they had been fulfilled and that the House was thoroughly dissatisfied with the action of the Minister on that occasion in ruling them out from the definition of what are Special Areas.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member is asking that other areas should be included, that is out of Order.

Mr. MacMillan: I accept your ruling without any hesitation. Far be it from me to try to create any Special Areas which do not exist. The Minister of Labour and his friends would see to that. The Special Areas which already exist are wide enough in scope and deep enough in distress to give us sufficient subject of discussion without going out to look for more. Dealing with these Special Areas themselves, I understand that I am not permitted to discuss the effect on adjacent areas of the mal-administration of the

Government inside these areas. I am not, apparently, permitted to discuss the effect in any area adjacent to Special Areas which come within the scope of the Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.

Mr. MacMillan: Let us look, then, for a moment at the administration of the Special Areas themselves in relation to the expenditure which forms the subject of to-night's discussion. Because we are so limited by the Government to-night, to the detriment of the Special Areas and so as to save the Government's face, we must limit ourselves to considering the very limited things which the Government have accomplished within these areas. Practically, that limits the scope of the Debate to the question of trading estates. My criticism is that these trading estates have in some cases been established at the expense of other areas. I should like to ask the Minister how far they are nationally beneficial. It is an exceedingly important question.
After all, if the setting up of these trading estates in these areas in a hotchpotch way is going to damage another part of the country, we have a right to an explanation on whether the trading estates are nationally beneficial. Can the Minister tell us how many factories have been established in these trading estates, the owners of which have later closed down established factories in other parts of the country? In every one of these cases I should say that if the factories established in the depressed area employ a certain fixed number of persons we should expect that if the same company, in order to avoid taxation through the de-rating advantages of the trading estate, have closed down another and older established factory elsewhere, about the same number of people are thrown out of employment in the old factory as are employed in the new. Therefore, I think it about cancels itself out. It is a very new and attractive form of avoiding taxation. You set up a factory under ideal conditions from a taxation point of view, under the blessing of the Ministry of Labour, which is in itself well worth securing, to the possible detriment of a competitor who does not enjoy these advantages because he is not in an area coming under the Act. You are, possibly, merely transferring a certain number of employés from an area which is without


the official blessing into an area which has it. I should like some information on the subject.
I am sorry that I cannot discuss the damage which has unquestionably been done in the areas adjacent to the Special Areas by the mal-administration in the areas themselves. After all, the country must be considered as an economic unit. You cannot divide it into all sorts of regions for official blessing or official neglect. I should like to know how far the long-term viewpoint has been taken in relation to the possible damage attached to this sort of temporary setting up of new industries. I want to know, also, to what extent the production of certain commodities has been increased by the setting up of these trading estates, and whether, in certain of these commodities, the question arises now of the protection for the manufacturers producing these commodities against competition on unfavourable terms from abroad, which is now less necessary than it was before this extra production of these commodities was undertaken. I want to know how much has been added to the supply of useful commodities in this country. I would like to know because of the low wages paid on some of these estates at the expense, very often, of workers with no choice but between the low wages in these factories and sometimes the still lower pittance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, and who have to travel long distances in some cases to these estates.
I want to know whether the Minister has considered seriously, between elections, subsidising out of the Funds available the wages of these employés? I want to know chiefly whether, to a large extent or not, young girls and women have not been attracted or abducted to these trading estates—I could hardly say seduced—because that has an element of temptation, and I do not think it is really a matter of attraction, but virtually coercion, because of their believing that their unemployment allowances will be discontinued as an alternative to accepting a miserable pittance in exchange for doing the work. I hope the Minister will tell us what value we get for the money spent, and what value these trading estates are to us and to the country, and whether they are of any value at all. How far, taking a long view have they

contributed to the solution of unemployment? Can the Minister say whether the work so far undertaken on which much money has been spent is likely to continue to be nationally useful and to continue, and whether the employment of these people is likely to continue with it?
I have asked a number of questions which might lead to a little clarification of some issues which have been raised, and which the Minister has so nimbly attempted to avoid. I hope he will, with all his nimbleness, give an answer to some of these questions. They are, after all, of very great importance not only to the unemployed people in these areas but as a pointer and indication in view of a possible extension of the policy of these Acts and to unemployed people outside who have some hope of their being taken into the Special Areas and given an opportunity for working in the trading estates and being taken out of the distress of continuous unemployment over a number of years.
I can only say it appears to some that the Special Areas provisions have done some good. I am not going to say they have not. We are better with them than without; but we have not very much on the "with" side in terms of a solution of the problem of unemployment by the creation of these trading estates. The chief advantage has gone to people who want to start factories cheaply and to close them down somewhere else. I would like to see provision to prevent that—a kind of guarantee; but I do not see that at the moment the Minister can give a guarantee. The Minister has accomplished in this connection very little indeed. What has been accomplished will ultimately be found, I think, to be partly to the disadvantage of areas which should be Special Areas but are not. The Minister has put the bowl of advantage nearer us, but he has given us a much shorter spoon.

1.5 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has shown great nimbleness. In his speech his argument went one way, but his conclusion was entirely different. A great many people have been asking the questions he has been asking, pot merely outside the Special Areas but in other


areas, too. One problem which the Government had to solve before making up their mind on the present procedure was the answer to these very questions. The hon. Member knows that while the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) takes the view that we have done wrong, yet he admitted in his speech that we are now answering the questions of people who have worked harder than anyone else for these areas, that is the Development Councils, who waited on me and asked me to do this very thing because they thought that although the Acts were meant to be temporary and as an experiment, they ought to go on a little longer. Therefore, they asked me to adopt the procedure we have adopted.
There are several question I cannot answer. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) knows that I cannot answer his question about underemployment in the weaving trade. It is not germane to the discussion tonight; but there are other occasions, no doubt, when that can be raised, and perhaps he will put those questions when I am able to answer them within the confines of the Rules of Order.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Brown: I cannot discuss the issue. I was only saying that, in order that he should not think that I was discourteous in not going into it in my speech.
There are one or two words I want to say about parts of the Special Areas Acts which affect the areas not inside the boundaries, that is Sections 5 and 6, about which questions were asked by the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and Burnley (Mr. Burke). One site company has been formed with capital and one with nominal capital only, in Wales. In Lancashire an effective site company has been formed. It has capital and has selected various areas inside Lancashire in which it proposes to operate. The hon. Member for Burnley was not quite correct in saying it was formed 18 months ago. The company itself was actually formed early this year, and I then proceeded to apply Section 5 to several areas. Hon. Members are well aware of the names of the areas and I need not detain the Committee at this time of the morning by giving them all, but I may say that the Lancashire site

company has a capital of £250,000, of which the Treasury is providing £62,500. That is the answer to the question.

Mr. Burke: My point was that although the company was formed in February it was October before any money was advanced by the Government.

Mr. Brown: It advanced the money at the earliest moment it was necessary. Hon. Members who spoke from Lancashire know that the idea of site companies was a Lancashire idea. The House will remember that when we discussed it I was very careful to warn Members against excessive hopes in that matter. The company is now in being, and money has been forthcoming from the Treasury as required by the company for the functions it is going to undertake.

Mr. James Griffiths: I gathered from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the House last week that the Government proposed to bring forward legislation shortly to provide additional facilities for those areas outside the Special Areas. What will happen to Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1937 when new legislation is brought in to deal with those areas outside?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that to-night because it would be out of Order. We shall have an appropriate occasion to discuss it later.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor said he was not aware of how much money was spent and he asked for an explanation of how it had been spent. He knows the Commissioners report from time to time, but I have a small table here dealing with England and Wales. In regard to industry in England and Wales, for which I am responsible, payments have been made of £3,225,000 and further commitments entered into of £2,115,000. For public works, hospitals, child welfare centres, sewerage, etc., payments have been made of £1,385,000, and further commitments entered into amounting to £4,715,000. For housing, payments have been made amounting to £1,060,000 and further commitments total £90,000. In regard to land settlement, payments have been made totalling £2,010,000 and further commitments amount to £1,240,000. In regard to schemes of social improvement, payments amount to £910,000 and further


commitments to £170,000. For miscellaneous schemes of welfare there have been payments amounting to £160,000 and further commitments amounting to £20,000. This makes a total for England and Wales in payments of £8,750,000 and a total in commitments of £8,250,000, making altogether £17,000,000.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that many of these figures relate to services which formerly were rendered by the Unemployment Grants Committee to local authorities, and that it is improper to refer to them as special consequences of the powers to which he has now referred?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in this matter. As the House knows, there were certain health and social services that were needed and it was for that purpose that grants were made for drainage and sewerage.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question regarding the Unemployment Grants Committee?

Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member will find that he is wrong. The Unemployment Grants Committee was wound up several years ago, and all that we are doing now is liquidating the commitments entered into years and years ago. The works now being carried on have nothing whatever to do with the work of the Unemployment Grants Committee.
The hon. Member for Spennymoor is always concerned with painting the picture in order to make it as black as possible. I have noticed that this last year or two things in his district were getting much better, and that in August last year the unemployment figures had fallen to 18 per cent. Of course, we all regret that, owing to the effects of the international situation, there has been a rise in unemployment, but let me give him the total figures of the area. Allowing for the rise, there has been a remarkable improvement in those areas as compared with the figures before the Special Commissioners commenced operations. In the middle of 1935 the insured unemployed totalled 391,000, and a year later 345,000. In the middle of 1937 the figures were 252,000, and in June, 1938,
they were 274,000. The latest figures are 277,000, but at the same time they are a very remarkable improvement.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this reduction is due to the provision of work and how much is due to transference of men?

Mr. Brown: Some, of course, is due to one cause and some to another, but it would be a complete fallacy to suppose that the major part of the improvement is due to transference.

Mr. Batey: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us know to where these figures apply?

Mr. Brown: I have taken the broad figures.

Mr. Batey: Is it fair to give them?

Mr. Brown: Hon. Members want the figures on the narrow footing. If the hon. Member wants the Durham figures I can give them with regard to the coal trade in the Durham and Tyneside areas. These are the figures: In October, 1935, in the coal trade the unemployed registered numbered 37,049. Eleven months after, in September, 1936, the number had fallen to 24,488. A year after that, in September, 1937, the number had fallen to 13,429. Even now, with the regrettable closing of pits, in October, 1938—the last figures which are available—the total in the coal trade is 20,127, as against 37,049 three years ago.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spennymoor made his speech very vigorously, as he always does, and he will have plenty more opportunities to-morrow and next Monday to add to it. He must allow me to reply to it, and put the picture in rather a fairer perspective, so that you can judge the work of the Commissioners in the areas as such. It would be perfectly easy for me inside these areas of Durham and Tyneside to pick out particular individual areas where there is a much heavier drop than this. There are some places which have made a most remarkable recovery.
Let me say a word about the trading estates. It is very interesting to notice—

Mr. Tomlinson: Which are these Special Areas?

Mr. Brown: I am not responsible for the hon. Member's misunderstanding. There was once an hon. Member who said it always took two to tell the truth—one to speak it and one to hear it. Complaint


is made about young people finding employment. Let me point out that the whole issue here is a basic one—an issue raised by hon. Members opposite for many years past. It was raised acutely by the Commissioners for the Special Areas. It is this. What was wanted in these areas, which had been hit because of the contraction of certain great basis trades, was to find the means of attracting industries of a different character and, indeed, a whole number of light industries. That very plea has been answered, and answered with some success. If I am told, as I am by the hon. Member for Spennymoor, that out of 1,600 now employed on factories in Team Valley there are 585 or 600 under 18 years of age, that is true, for I gave the figures. But surely the hon. Member would know, as every mother and father in the areas knows, that the problem of these areas was greatly accentuated by the absence of opportunities for these young people. Light industries are to be established in these areas with heavy unemployment, and especially areas which had depended one one or two great industries. Let the House take the trading estates as an illustration. There is a trading estate which has been working twelve years in this country, and in this period the working population grew from 6,000 to nearly 20,000, and 8,000 of that increase were men. I would ask hon. Members who make this point not to stress it because as these estates develop, as I am sure they will, it will be found that not only will young people find employment but adults, too, as, indeed, they are now doing.
Another point made by hon. Members was that we had spent £1,500,000 and had employed only 585 persons. Of course, that figure of 585 relates to adults over 18 years of age. The real number employed in Team Valley is 1,600 workers. To take that in the way that hon. Members have done is a completely fallacious argument, because anybody who has had any part in planning great industrial undertakings like these knows that the really heavy expense is in the early stages—laying out, training, putting up factories, and so on—and that the amount per capita, as you add to the estate, will go down very heavily with each year of development. So I hope the hon. Member for Spennymoor will not use that fallacy again, because I know the

people of Durham do not like such fallacious arguments.
I think I have answered all the questions put to me and I only want to say this other thing. There can be no doubt whatever that there has been very great good done in these areas by these Acts. The Development Councils from the whole of the areas waited on me with the earnest plea that, while they realized the Acts were meant to be temporary and were due to lapse in 1939 by the will of Parliament expressed two years ago, these Acts should be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for another year. This fact is an answer to the House and the country as to the reasonableness of the action we have taken.

Mr. Bevan: Can the Minister tell us when he proposes to introduce his amending Bill?

Mr. Brown: No, I cannot do that yet.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Paling: I want to put a point about the site companies. I listened with some amazement to the answer as to what had been done with regard to this particular part of the Bill. I think the Minister said, among other things. that he would not expect too much from them. There have been only two attempts to do anything in this regard. One was in Lancashire where a company has actually been set up, and the other was in South Wales, though there nothing has been done, I believe, but only talked about. Is this a satisfactory conclusion and is the right hon. Gentleman going to rest satisfied with that? I am interested in this because I am in an area where they are trying to take the opportunity of this Section of the Act. I approached the Secretary of the Labour Ministry some months ago about this business. Inquiries had been put to me from a place in my constituency which has been hard hit for a number of years.

Mr. Brown: It is designed to help these areas.

Mr. Paling: I was given all the information by the Secretary, who was very helpful, but my experience was that when we had all the information and with all the good will in the world, the people who tried to do something for the unemployed people found the circumstances such that they were just able to do nothing That


has probably been the experience of a good many other people who have made inquiries under this Section. There is talk about a company being set up and then nothing is done. We do not know if a site has actually been purchased; at any rate, no factory has been put up, and there seems no prospect of any factory.
In view of the increasing number of unemployed I ask the Minister if he is satisfied with this position? Is nothing going to be done in order to enable this part of the Act to function, so as to give some assistance to the people outside the Special Areas? It was put in the Act, I suppose, to help them. Time and experience have proved that they cannot get any help from it, and that it is practically a failure. Is the Minister going to do nothing in this regard?

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Poole: Earlier in the evening it was with some trepidation that I contemplated speaking in this debate, but seeing that we have reached this hour I do not think it would be out of place if I make one or two observations. I was somewhat alarmed before the Minister spoke because I saw a very grave look upon his face as members rose and criticised from this side of the Committee. I have been even more alarmed at the somewhat complacent way in which he has accepted the criticism and has refused to deal with many of these material points raised by members on this side. He suggested that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was painting the picture too black. With all due respect to the Minister I doubt whether it is possible to paint too black a picture of the Special Areas. I wonder whether there is any shade of black which is too deep to picture the misery and the poverty of the people in those areas. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some areas which had accomplished a remarkable recovery. I have had some experience during the past few years of several of these areas and I know of none of them in which one could suggest that there is a vestige of a remarkable recovery taking place. He quoted various figures from 1935 downwards to show some improvement in the employment figure.
The point was rightly made by a speaker, and the Minister admitted it,

that bound up with that is the question of transference I want to have a word tonight on the expenditure of this money on the transference of labour from these Special Areas. I represent an area, not a Special Area, but an area which is affected by the transference of labour from the Special Areas. I find that in the period in which the Minister claims that remarkable recovery, no fewer than 42,975 men were transferred from these Special Areas. I wonder whether the Minister really appreciates exactly what it means to nearly 43,000 families to be taken out of their environment and transferred to areas which to them are almost foreign lands, to be called upon to take their wives and children there and settle. I can claim some measure of responsibility for personally having taken one or two men from the Special Areas and found them work in other parts of the country. I cannot say that any experiment I have made on those lines can be called an unqualified success. You cannot uproot men and take them away from their homes and traditions and plant them down among people where they are aliens, and then expect them to be happy.
I am concerned particularly with the transference of juvenile labour. There may be some argument for transference from the Special Areas. Quite frankly I know of no justifiable argument for the taking of young children from the Special Areas and bringing them to the industrial midlands. The Minister claimed an improvement in juvenile employment in the Special Areas, but either his figures are wrong or mine are wrong, and mine are taken from the last report of the Commissioner. They say that in September, 1937, the total number of juveniles unemployed in the Special Areas was 20,306, and in November, 1936, it was 21,772. There is a decrease of about 1,470. One has to have regard to the fact that during the year ending September there have been transferred from the Special Areas no fewer than 9,216 juveniles.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am sorry to interrupt, but as a matter of fact the transference does not come within the Special Areas Act. It is outside the Act.

Mr. Batey: My hon. Friend is only replying to the statement of the Minister.

Mr. Poole: I was speaking of the use to which this money is being put, and this money surely is being put to finance the transfer of men from the Special Areas. If not, then the Minister was undoubtedly in order in claiming that the transference of labour from the Special Areas was one of the factors that had reduced unemployment.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. It was in reply to an interjection which was made.

Mr. Poole: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and I only regret that it is not possible to pursue that point. I hoped I was in order in raising the matter, but I saw the difficulties which met hon. Members earlier in the Debate, when they had to steer their ships through very narrow channels. I hesitated to speak, but being assured that this Debate had to go beyond the hour of 1.30 I had to make suitable provision.
I am concerned with another condition that still prevails in the Special Areas in spite of the best efforts of the Minister. I am concerned with those men who have passed the age of 45, the old unemployed who are still left in those areas and for whom there appears to be little hope. I am appalled to find that in West Cumberland 42·2 per cent. of the unemployed are over 45 years of age. On Tyneside the figure is 43 per cent., and in South Wales 50 per cent. of the unemployed are over 45. I wonder what exactly the Minister proposes to do with those men who have passed the age of 45 and for whom there is no place. Many of those Special Areas have now become areas in which there are only old men who have grown old before they should because of the ceaseless burden of unemployment year in and year out. When we find a Special Area such as South Wales—of which other Members are more competent to speak than I—with 50 per cent. of the unemployed over 45, what measure is going to meet the needs of those people? What special provision does the Minister envisage to meet the case of the man who has been unemployed for many years? This is a serious problem which is not met by the expenditure of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. Then there is the question of the location of industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: The location of industry certainly does not come within the purview of this Act.

Mr. Poole: Perhaps I expressed myself wrongly. I was concerned with the trading estates and the location of industry on the trading estates. I am sorry I expressed myself in an unfortunate way. I cannot believe that the advantage which has accrued in the solving of unemployment in the Special Areas has been greatly enhanced by the provision of the trading estates. You have created new factories and works on your trading estates, and you have simultaneously closed down the same factory in another area where the rates were probably very much higher. In so doing you have merely called upon your Special Areas Fund to take your labour from one part of the country and employ it in another part of the country. Therefore something more vital than trading estates has got to be done. I have yet to find that the trading estates have solved the problem of the old unemployed man, the man of over 45. The only labour required on the trading estates is the labour of boys and girls. It is regrettable it we are going again to see the spectacle of employment being available for boys and girls of 14, 15 and 16, who are perhaps going to displace their own fathers and elder brothers. While we may be capable of being misunderstood if we oppose this Measure to-night, it is totally inadequate, and I regret that there has not been greater opportunities for us to express ourselves more fully and along broader lines than we have been able to do to-night.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to express my regret that so important a matter has been discussed at this hour of the morning. My hon. Friend, the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole), in his last sentence said that perhaps we would be misunderstood in the country if we voted against this Money Resolution because it might be assumed that we are against spending money in the distressed areas. I do not think we are exposed to such a misunderstanding. Earlier in the evening the Minister told us that the Money Resolution did not limit the sum to any amount, and that he could spend on this matter as much money as he liked.

Mr. E. Brown: No.

Mr. Bevan: He said that the amount is flexible. Does he say that he has spent all the money he is empowered to spend?

Mr. Brown: I have already given the Committee figures to show that the Commissioner has made commitments for £8,250,000 which has not been expended.

Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman spent to the maximum of his Parliamentary powers? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Does he, therefore, suggest that the amount of money is the amount which ought to be spent in relieving this problem of the distressed areas, or are there powers which he obtained which he has not exercised? He says that he has spent a certain amount of money. There is still acute, grave distress in the distressed areas. There is an unused amount of money which he has not spent. Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has not spent it? We should like to know. Is it because there are no ideas upon which he could spend it or because he is reluctant to spend it? The Committee should ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this question. Some time ago the House generously gave to the Minister elastic powers of expenditure. It took so grave a view of this matter that it did not put a specific sum in the Money Resolution. The Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, persuaded the House to accept this Measure on the ground that no limit should be fixed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that any amount of money which would be needed he would have found. We, therefore, want to know whether the powers which we are asked to renew to-night have been adequately used. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he could have spent more money than he has spent. Why has he not spent it? Will he answer that? Of course, he will not. He has not refrained from spending it because there has been a lack of power and lie has not refrained because there has been a lack of ideas. He has refrained from spending it because of a lack of desire to spend it. He can take which position he likes. Does he say that it is lack of ideas? If so, hon. Members on these benches could provide first-class ideas as to how to spend money usefully in the distressed areas. We know that there is no limitation of the amount, so that the

only conclusion we are driven to is that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from a lack of desire to spend the money.
Is there a fourth alternative—that he has not disclosed to the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House and the Treasury has in fact prevented him from spending any more? It is not the first time that the House has been misled from the Treasury Box. If he is suffering from any restriction from the Treasury, perhaps he will tell the House, but if not, then we are bound to form the opinion that he thinks he has spent all the money he can usefully spend on this matter. I find myself in some difficulty in understanding the position which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up this morning, because he has told us in the course of his statement that a certain amount of money has been spent—I think he said it was £17,000,000 to £18,000,000. He does not say "spent," but there is a new phrase—the amount they are "committed to spend." We do not know whether that is to be spent over the next year, over the next hundred years or thousand years. It merely means that they have been committed to spend a certain amount of money. On what?
The right hon. Gentleman is the luckiest Minister in the Government. He is really the darling of the political gods. if there are any. He entered office under the most auspicious circumstances. He has now made them into suspicious He had no bother at all with unemployment insurance benefits; they were dealt with by the Unemployment Assistance Advisory Committee. He was relieved by the Unemployment Assistance Board of dealing with a vast mass of people in receipt of unemployment assistance, and here we have an industrious and energetic Minister who is able to devote all his resources to the one problem left to discuss. He has not got to discuss unemployment any longer. We have not had any Debates about those things. They have been taken from us. The Minister has been left only with the problem of the distressed areas. He is regarded by his colleagues as a highly successful Minister. He is regarded by them as one of the Ministers who has saved them a great deal of political embarrassment, very largely because Conservatives think that because water comes through a tap it comes from it.
The Unemployment Assistance Board have removed from the Minister any direct Parliamentary obligation. They assume that the absence of controversy about his office is the result of the pertinacity of the Minister of Labour himself. As a matter of fact we know that that is not so. But in regard to the last problem, where his ingenuity could extend itself, what is the answer he makes to-night—that he has committed himself over these years to a miserable £17,000,000 or £18,000,000 in dealing with a problem that the whole country admits to be the most acute problem of the day. We are asked to renew these powers to a Minister who has used them in this incompetent and mean manner. We desire to vote against the Minister because we say he has not used those powers at all. Parliament has given him a confidence that he has failed to discharge; it has given him powers he has not used and opportunities he has not exercised.
My hon. Friends would be perfectly justified in saying that a renewal of these powers in the hands of the Minister is wholly unjustified having regard to the way in which he has used them. They ought not to be under any misapprehension as to how this vote will be regarded. It will not be regarded as a vote against a Government having power to spend money on the distressed areas. Has any hon. Member any doubt as to how he should vote? Or does he think that his constituents will say he has voted for no money being spent on the distressed areas? We have urged again and again that more money should be spent. This figure of £17,000,000 to £18,000,000 he knows to be a sleight of hand and entirely unrepresentative of the real position. The Patronage Secretary yawns, but he has never had any responsibility.

Captain Margesson: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Bevan: He has never had any administrative responsibility at all. There are Members on this side of the House who have spent very many years in local government. He has had responsibility for whipping up his herd now and again to go into the right fold, but social responsibility—none. There are Members here who have sat on local authorities for

20 years. The Minister of Labour said something unforgivable this evening—that it is not true to say that the Unemployment Grants Committee discharged duties many of which are being discharged by the Commissioners for the Special Areas. Does he adhere to that? He really ought, before he speaks, to acquaint himself with the facts. The Unemployment Grants Committee make grants of 100 per cent. for many of the services now included in these estimates. He has, in fact, misrepresented the expenditure on the distressed areas entirely. Take the case of sewage or hospitals. Does he say the Unemployment Grants Committee never make any contribution towards the cost of additional sewage? I should like to know. Does he say that the expenditure to which the Commissioners for the Special Areas have committed themselves is expenditure in addition to other forms of expenditure for which already legislative sanction exists? That is what we were led to expect—that we had a new instrument that was going to deal with this problem in a novel way.
The Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that existing forms of financial machinery were too rigid and that we wanted something more flexible, something novel not circumvented by Treasury usage, but something experimental. What have they done? In the first Special Areas Act it was forbidden to anybody to spend any money on matters that would be undertaken by the local authorities. Under the amending Act you have transferred to the Special Commissioners a large number of duties originally discharged by the local authorities and have regarded them as new expenditure by the Commissioners. You have made the country believe that the £17,000,000 to £18,000,000 are special moneys found for the relief of the distressed areas whereas much is repetition of expenditure already found by local authorities outside the Special Areas. The right hon. Gentleman has irritated me in his reply by entirely misrepresenting the position. If he had said he was in a difficulty in finding new ideas for expending money we might have sympathised at the poverty of his mind and come to his assistance. But it is too much for him to say he has exercised these powers so well that they should be renewed. Hon. Gentlemen will be perfectly justified in going into the Lobby to refuse to arm a


Minister with powers he has used so inadequately that he ought not to have them renewed.

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Tinker: Reference has been made in the course of the speech by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to the low wages being paid under the Special Areas grant and he mentioned rates of pay of eight or nine shillings a week for boys and girls. He referred to trade union rates. Has the Minister any power to say to the people who take advantage of the grants made to set up works and factories that they shall fix a particular rate for those people? It does seem to be ridiculous that in a Special Area where a factory is set up and advantage is taken of their plight they should be paid inadequate rates. It is very hard on people who we know are sometimes ready to take almost anything. Will he make a statement as to whether we have protection for these poor people who have die right to a decent rate of wages?

2 a.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I am sorry that I failed to answer that point in the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I have not heard of that case. No representations have been made to me. If the hon. Member will let me know about it I will look into it. I believe there was a case referred to the Commissioner. I do not know whether it is the same case but I understood the question was settled to the satisfaction of the trade union concerned. It may not be the same case.

Mr. Batey: All I know of the case is what I read to the House. The Amalgamated Society of Leatherworkers sent a letter to me and said they had asked you to meet a depution.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have the letter. I have not heard anything about it yet. The fact is that the majority of trades on the Team Valley Estate are trade board trades and they have the protection of the Trade Board Acts. That is the answer to his question.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I did not hear the word Scotland in the Minister's reply and it seems to me that surely there should be some reference to it.

Mr. Brown: I am very glad to do that and to give some details to the Committee. In regard to the Hillington Estate, the number of tenants is 36 for factories of sixty standard units and there are 41 nest units with 30 tenants. Three factories have been built to order and the estate is feuing five acres of land each to two tenants. The total number of tenants is 73 and the total number of factories is 105. The total number of tenants in occupation is 51, and the total number of factories is 75. The number of employed is 520 men and 190 women, a total of 7ro. It is estimated that the total number to be employed by firms in the future is 469 men and 670 women making in all 1,139. This will make altogether a total of 1,839 men and women either employed or to be employed. In the Lanarkshire estate there are two prospective tenants for the factories.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has raised the question of unemployment in Scotland. The position in Scotland as a whole, compared with England and Wales, was once accurately described by a Member of this House as grey as compared with the black and white patches in England and Wales. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to give some figures. The percentage of unemployment in all the four Special Areas is 21.6 per cent., while in the Scottish area the percentage is 18.5 per cent. There has been a very great improvement since the period when the Scottish Special Commisioner started to operate. I hope these facts will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Davidson: While thanking the Minister for his speech I should like to refer to his figures relating to the Hillington estate. He has stated that there are 710 people employed there with a prospect of employment for a further 1,139, but can he give us a definite statement as to when these other 1,100 people will be absorbed. Surely they must have some idea when they are going to fulfil these schemes, and it is hardly good enough to say that we have done this and we might do that or we are in the process of doing this, but taking all in we have a rosy picture now. The Minister knows the position in Glasgow, with its grave unemployment problem


and the grave burden on the local authority, and he knows that something must be done there. I maintain that the Minister ought to come here fully equipped with all the necessary information, and if he has not got it now he should have it fully worked out and should circulate it to Scottish Members. I would remind him that Scotland is an important part of Great Britain and we have 74 Members in this House. I would ask him to consider this very important fact and to give Scotland its proper place.

Mr. Benn: I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us what are the countries with which we have clearing arrangements and what their plans are.

2.7 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): We have got under this Clearing Act four clearing arrangements at the present moment. These clearings are with Italy, Rumania, Turkey and Spain; the operation of the Spanish clearing is suspended for the present. We have not got a clearing with Germany, since we have a Payments Agreement which is working very satisfactorily. However, I should not be in order in dealing with that. I cannot say what the amounts of the balances are in the Clearing Accounts at the present moment; in the three cases in which the clearing is working, not like the Spanish clearing, the money is being paid out as it comes in.

Mr. Bevan: How is the arrangement working with Italy? I understand there have been some difficulties.

Captain Wallace: The present Agreement was concluded with Italy this spring. I want to be frank and I cannot say that the position of that clearing is altogether satisfactory at the moment. The receipts of the clearing have not come up to expectations, while British exports to Italy have come up to more than the full quota provided for in the Agreement; the result has naturally been an increased delay in payments from the Clearing Office on this side. The Government is initiating discussions with the Italian authorities for meeting the situation and we have also drawn the attention of exporters to the dangers of exporting more

to Italy than they were likely to be paid for. I can assure the House that the matter is under the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Benn: Is it contemplated that any new arrangements will be come to with other countries?

Captain Wallace: No. It is not contemplated at the moment. We regard these clearing arrangements as a pis aller not to be used unless it is necessary. It is only with the greatest reluctance that they have been put into operation, with the consent of the Governments concerned, as a practical means of clearing debts on this side.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses, and the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts, as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and by the continuance of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty, being expenses or receipts which, under or by virtue of either of the two last mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys or paid into the Exchequer.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1938, made in pursuance of the proviso to Section 309 (1) of the Government of India Act 1935, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of November.''—[Colonel Llewellin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'Clock.